Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKERin the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND BILL

Order read for consideration of Lords amendments.

To be considered tomorrow.

BATH CITY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

GREATER MANCHESTER BILL [Lords]

LUTON BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

Orders read for Third reading.

To be read the Third time tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE

Departmental Cars

Mr. Roger King: asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many cars his Department has purchased over the last two years; and whether they were produced in the United Kingdom.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. John Lee): I apologise for the absence of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, who is on an official visit to Denmark. Over the past two financial years—April 1983 to March 1985 —we purchased 4,411 cars and car-type utility vehicles, and 96 per cent. of this total, or 4,244 vehicles, were produced in the United Kingdom.

Mr. King: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a distinction between what is produced in the United Kingdom and what is manufactured in the United Kingdom? Does he agree that priority must be given in future purchasing to the United Kingdom content of vehicles?

Mr. Lee: Yes. We buy British vehicles whenever that is sensible, economic and consistent with our international obligations. We have a first-class record of support for the United Kingdom motor industry. I note my hon. Friend's comment about content. There is a problem and we are paying increasing attention to it

Mr. MacKenzie: What on earth is the Ministry of Defence doing with more than 4,000 cars?

Mr. Lee: It is a substantial Ministry.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: May I congratulate my hon. Friend on the superior and good example set by his

Ministry in purchasing so many British cars? I wish that other Departments would follow that example. May I reinforce the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield, (Mr. King) in saying that it is important to buy British cars with United Kingdom content?

Mr. Lee: Increasingly we are taking into account United Kingdom content in our purchasing.

Mr. Denzil Davies: The Minister's answer was carefully drafted, and I have no doubt that he is pleased with its reception, but why is it necessary for Ministers, the top brass and top civil servants, to drive around in Ford Granadas, which are mainly, if not completely, made in West Germany? Do not officials in the Foreign Office and in almost every other Government Department ride in British-made cars?

Mr. Lee: When the Ford Granadas were chosen, they were considered to be the best value for money. When there is a model change in two years’ time, we shall evaluate other contenders.

Arms Control Unit

Mr. D. E. Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the work of the arms control unit in his Department.

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Stanley): The defence arms control unit was formed on 2 January. It has combined and strengthened existing civilian and military expertise within the Ministry of Defence in this area. It provides the focus within the Ministry for advice to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on how best to support the Government's policy of balanced and verifiable arms control, on which the lead responsibility continues to be with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

Mr. Thomas: How can we place any confidence in the work of the unit or in statements made in the last year by the Secretary of State and other Defence Ministers when clearly they have misled the House and the country about the deployment by NATO of battlefield nuclear weapons?

Mr. Stanley: I cannot accept that. The position is clearly reflected in the communique that was issued after the latest meeting of the nuclear planning group. I think the hon. Gentleman will find that perfectly consistent with the answers that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my colleagues on the Front Bench have given.

Sir Antony Buck: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is most important to maintain the closest co-ordination with the Foreign Office on this matter? Would he like to say something about the co-ordination that there is between the unit and similar units working within the ambit of the Foreign Secretary?

Mr. Stanley: I entirely agree with my hon. and learned Friend. There is a need for close co-ordination, and I can assure him that it takes place extremely closely at both ministerial and official level.

Mr. Denzil Davies: Is it not a fact that this so-called arms control unit is a cosmetic exercise? What arms are being controlled? In fact, the Government are engaged on a massive escalation of nuclear power in purchasing Trident. They have accepted cruise missiles at Greenham


Common and probably at Molesworth. They are embarking on the modernisation of British battlefield nuclear weapons. What on earth are we talking about in terms of arms control?

Mr. Stanley: The right hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong when he refers to a cosmetic arrangement. I thought that the Opposition Front Bench and other Opposition Members would welcome the constructive contribution that is being made for the first time by the Ministry of Defence in arms control, under this Government.

Dr. Hampson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the previous Labour Government could have taken such an initiative, but made no such attempt to have an equivalent unit in the Ministry of Defence, which the public expect? Is the unit in touch with Washington? It is vital that we tell the American Government that they must hold to SALT 2 although it is unratified.

Mr. Stanley: I can assure my hon. Friend that the defence arms control unit keeps in close contact with opposite numbers in Washington as well as in the Foreign Office.

British Citizens (Employment)

Mr. Yeo: asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many British citizens are employed in the armed forces or otherwise by his Department.

Mr. Lee: That information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate time and effort. Each candidate for Her Majesty's armed forces, and for the Civil Service, must meet certain nationality and residence rules in order to be eligible for consideration for a post and each case is individually examined at the time of application.

Mr. Yeo: I understand that the Ministry of Defence has more than half a million United Kingdom-based staff apart from its overseas staff. We should be able to ascertain how many British and foreign citizens are employed, directly or indirectly, by the Ministry of Defence. Will my hon. Friend assure me that every effort will be made to ensure that British citizens are given every consideration when they apply for posts that are held by foreign citizens, so that the maximum number of British staff are employed by the Ministry?

Mr. Lee: My hon. Friend's figure is not right. We are talking about 500,000 employees overall—service men and those on the civilian side, both here and abroad. There is no management or other requirement to provide a global nationality breakdown of service personnel and civil servants. However, I shall take into account my hon. Friend's point about United Kingdom citizens. Let me take West Germany as an example. We employ about 25,000 locally there, and probably the vast majority are German.

Mr. George: How many British citizens or other citizens are likely to be deployed on the new aircraft carrier, or through deck cruiser, the Ark Royal? Will the Minister confirm, or deny, that, after tens of millions of pounds have been spent on that aircraft carrier, no troops, sailors or aircraft will be specifically designated for it?

Mr. Lee: In terms of our planning and the size of the

fleet, we believe that there is a sensible equation between the numbers that we shall employ in our Navy and the numbers that we shall require.

Falkland Islands

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the cost per Falkland Islander of defence expenditure in connection with the Falkland Islands for each of the next five years.

Mr. Stanley: The provision for Falklands costs included in the defence budget is equivalent to £288,000 per Falkland Islander in 1985–86, £234,000 in 1986–87 and £156,000 in 1987–88. Funding thereafter will be determined in future public expenditure surveys.

Mr. Bennett: Would not the Minister have thought that many of the Falkland Islanders would prefer a smaller sum than that to move elsewhere? Why is it so important to give such a sum of money to people in the Falkland Islands to maintain their traditional role in that area rather than to try to maintain the tradition in this country of full employment? If similar sums of money were spent in some of the areas of extremely high unemployment, would that not be far better and would we not protect the traditions of this country rather than waste the money in the Falklands?

Mr. Stanley: Those hon. Members on both sides of the House who visited the Falkland Islands have been struck by the determination of those who live there to continue living under the British way of life. I do not regard this in any way as a possible waste or misuse of money. More than 250 British people lost their lives in the recovery of those islands, and I am certain that it would be quite unacceptable to the great majority of British people not to take steps to defend them thereafter.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Does my right hon. Friend agree that all Conservative Members feel that the Secretary of State was absolutely right to mention the other day in the Falkland Islands that it was to the benefit of NATO that one member of NATO had shown the ability to back diplomacy with skilled and courageous use of force? At the same time, we should make it absolutely clear to the Argentines that the Falkland Islands are not a NATO base and that at present there is no intention of their being one.

Mr. Stanley: It was a good indicator from this country as a NATO member that it made its own determination to protect the interests of British people wherever they might be and to ensure that British territory was not subject to invasion in any part of the world.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: Is the Minister not aware that many thousands of people in the north of England will be absolutely outraged at the answer that he has just given? It costs about £200,000 per head to keep Falklanders in the Falkland Islands, yet young people in places such as the northern region have been forced to move to the south-east or the west midlands to try to find work. They could be maintained in their own areas in full-time employment —instead of suffering from 20 per cent. unemployment —for much less than we are frittering away on the Falkland Islands.

Mr. Stanley: I am quite certain that many people in the north-east of England will clearly remember what it cost,


both in human and financial terms, to repair the ravages in this country when peace broke down between 1939 and1945.

Falklands Airfield

Sir William van Straubenzee: asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects civilian aircraft to be able to use the military airfield in the Falkland Islands.

Mr. Stanley: To enable the remaining construction work to be completed as rapidly and as economically as possible between now and early 1986 when the airport becomes fully operational, the use of Mount Pleasant airport currently has to be limited to the following aircraft: wide-bodied aircraft owned by or chartered by the Ministry of Defence carrying service personnel; civilian passengers and priority freight; locally based light aircraft; and possibly the occasional civil charter flight. Once the airport becomes fully operational early next year, there will normally be no need to limit the frequency of either military or civil flights.

Sir William van Straubenzee: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, and appreciate that in the early support facilities such as buildings are necessarily extremely limited. Does his answer confirm—I hope that it does—that, in view of the massive and proper investment in this remarkable airfield, there will be no avoidable delay in making it available for civilian purposes when that is possible?

Mr. Stanley: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. As I have explained, we are trying to ensure that the airfield is fully completed at the fastest possible rate. After that takes place early next year there will be no impediment, apart from overriding military requirements, to the civil use of the airfield.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Has not this military airfield been an extravagant abuse and use of public resources? Is it not true that had the Government offered each Falkland Islander £150,000 or £200,000—only one fifth of the amount of money which has been spent on the Falklanders in the last four years—they would all have sought to leave the Falkland Islands •and the British Government would not be faced with the prospect of defending an island that is quite indefensible? Why do the Government not review their position and face up to common sense?

Mr. Stanley: As I said previously, there is no basis for saying that the Falkland Islanders would want to leave the way of life that they have chosen.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Just make them an offer.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Stanley: Regarding the costs of the airport, it has the benefit of ensuring savings from the present cost of the air bridge, and also of giving us much greater flexibility on force levels as a result of the greater rapidity of reinforcement that we can achieve through the construction of the airfield.

Mr. Latham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Conservative Members regard honouring our commitments to the Falkland islanders as a matter of honour?

Mr. Stanley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I am certain that that is the view, not only of Conservative Members, but of the overwhelming majority of British people.

Accidental Nuclear War (Prevention)

Mr. Simon Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on measures taken by his Department to prevent accidental nuclear war.

Mr. McTaggart: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the measures taken by his Department to prevent accidental nuclear war.

Mr. Stanley: The United Kingdom, the United States and France all have agreements with the Soviet Union to prevent accidental nuclear war. The relevant agreements for the United Kingdom are the British-Soviet Agreement on the Establishment of a Direct Communications Line —the British-Soviet hot line agreement of 1967— —and the 1977 Agreement on the Prevention of Accidental Nuclear War, Cmnd. 7072.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister recall the words of the Secretary of State for Defence to the Defence Select Committee on 8 May, when he said that there was no precedent for the reduction of nuclear arms anywhere? Given that we are now in an age where the nuclear hair trigger is at its most dangerous, must we wait for a precedent before stepping back from that brink? Are we not, with increased research, moving nearer to it, which is in the opposite direction to the wishes of our country and to the other countries that he mentioned?

Mr. Stanley: I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome the fact that under the Government there has been a substantial reduction in NATO battlefield nuclear weapons, which is greater than that achieved by the Lib-Lab Government who preceded us.

Mr. Nicholls: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the greatest risk of accidental nuclear war would come about if government were entrusted to a party which had no discernible defence policy? Does he agree also that it would be a great tragedy if there were alliance Government, bearing in mind that their two wings have at least four discernible, different and wholly conflicting policies between them?

Mr. Stanley: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that one of the essential safeguards of the continuation of peace is the certainty of deterrence, which is ensured by the continuation of the present Government.

Mr. Home Robertson: Is the Minister aware of the old maxim that what can happen, will happen? In view of that, why on earth are the Government increasing the risk of accidental nuclear war by deploying new nuclear weapons systems in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Stanley: The facts are clear. What the hon. Gentleman fears will happen has certainly not happened during the past 40 years.

Mr. Denzil Davies: In a previous answer the Minister mentioned battlefield nuclear weapons. Will he try to clear up the considerable confusion between statements made to the United States Congress by Dr. Wagner about the decision to modernise British battlefield nuclear weapons,


and the Government's statements in the House? Is it intended to replace the existing 155 mm atomic shell with a new atomic shell, which can be used and will be produced by the Americans, and which can also be adapted into a type of neutron bomb? What is the Government's position? Have they told the Americans one thing and the House another?

Mr. Stanley: That is certainly not the case. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we are not answerable for the statements made by Dr. Wagner or any other American official. I assure the right hon Gentleman that the previous answers which he and his colleagues have been given, which is that no decision has been taken to modernise British battlefield nuclear weapons, are the case.

Ulster Defence Regiment

Dr. Mawhinney: asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of the full-time and part-time Ulster Defence Regiment are Roman Catholics; and how these figures compare with those five years ago.

Mr. Lee: Between 2 and 3 per cent. of the Ulster Defence Regiment have declared their religion as Roman Catholic. Information on the position five years ago is not available, but it is probable that the proportion has not changed significantly since then.

Dr. Mawhinney: Does my hon. Friend agree that the chances of cross-community acceptance of the UDR would be increased if more of its members were Roman Catholics, and that it is precisely because the IRA recognises that fact that it has been deliberately attacking Catholic members of the UDR in recent weeks?

Mr. Lee: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. We encourage volunteers from all sections of the community in Northern Ireland, but it is most necessary to build up Catholic numbers. However, tragically, intimidation and brutal murders have undeniably had an effect on Catholic recruitment, and a particular brand of courage is required for Catholics to participate in the UDR.

Mr. Duffy: Is the Minister aware that, contrary to the statement of his hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney), what is exercising the minds of Catholics in Northern Ireland is not whether they should be members of the UDR but whether they can avoid being killed by members of the UDR— [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Does the Minister not recall the recent stories of convictions of members of the UDR for criminal offences and linking them with illegal Protestant paramilitary organisations? How does he think that such a tarnished organisation can possibly enhance the name and the role of the British Army?

Mr. Lee: I am very sorry that the hon. Gentleman has gone over the top in this matter. There are about 6,500 members of the UDR, and only a very small proportion of them have had allegations brought against them. There is bound to be the occasional black sheep in any group of that size. The whole House and whole country should be deeply appreciative of all those involved in the UDR. They have served with considerable bravery, integrity and dedication.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Do not the court cases mentioned by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) in his hysterical supplementary question

demonstrate the determination of the authorities to ensure that any crimes committed by members of the UDR are properly punished? Does not the fact that so many Roman Catholics who were members of the UDR have been murdered show a deliberate policy of the terrorists to intimidate Roman Catholics out of the UDR? Will the Ministry of Defence acquaint the House and the public with the extent of the Roman Catholic sacrifice?

Mr. Lee: My hon. Friend is right on all counts, but it would be inappropriate for me to comment on particular cases before they come to the courts. One is very conscious of the intimidation and the seeming picking off by terrorists of Catholic members of the UDR.

Mr. Flannery: When will the Government face reality in regard to Northern Ireland and realise that the overwhelming majority of Catholics would no more dream of joining the UDR than of flying in the air? The reality is that they believe in a united Ireland, and that due to British imperialism theré will never be peace in that benighted country until Ireland is united.

Mr. Lee: The hon. Gentleman is at least consistent in his minority view.

Mr. McNamara: Is the Minister aware that when anyone dies in Northern Ireland, whether it is a member of the UDR, a British soldier, a terrorist — however misled he may be — or an innocent civilian, that is a blow to their families, their friends and to everybody, and that we cannot but sympathise with them? That having been said, is the Minister aware of the utter alienation of the minority population in Northern Ireland from the UDR, partly because of its origins in the B Specials and partly because of its continuing conduct over the years in the treatment of individuals, whether they have been guilty of criminal offences or not?
Is the Minister also aware that the future of the UDR is one of the main issues under discussion between the British Government and the Government of the Republic, and that a sensible policy of trying to move away from having too much reliance on the UDR, together with a reduction in its numbers, would be far more effective in achieving peace in Northern Ireland than most other actions taken by the Government?

Mr. Lee: Once again the hon. Gentleman's views are consistent, and he frequently expresses them on the UDR. The Army and the UDR are required at all times to operate within the law.

Local Overseas Allowances

Mr. Speller: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the local overseas allowances of Property Services Agency staff stationed in Northern Ireland, West Germany or Gibraltar in comparison with those payable to airmen with the rank of sergeant or flight lieutenant; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Lee: The overseas cost of living allowance for civil servants in the Property Services Agency or other Departments is known as foreign service allowance. Because of differing conditions of service and salary levels it is not directly comparable with the local overseas allowance paid to service men.
Local overseas allowance for the ranks mentioned varies between nothing and £2,248 per annum. Foreign


service allowance for equivalent civilians varies between £220 per annum and £2,613 per annum. I have written to my hon. Friend with further full details.

Mr. Speller: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. However, is he aware of the deep resentment that is felt by the armed forces, who are clearly at a disadvantage compared with their civilian counterparts in similar positions? Is he also aware of the number of young officers and non-commissioned officers who have said that they will be leaving the services at the end of their present engagements? Will he ask that changes in the local overseas allowance should in future be treated more sympathetically and phased in more cleverly?

Mr. Lee: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his interest, but there is no evidence to suggest that the reduction in the local overseas allowance in Germany has caused many of the younger officers and non-commissioned officers to give notice of their intention to leave. The overseas foreign service allowance paid to civil servants employed by the Property Services Agency and the Ministry of Defence is also subject to periodic review. The foreign service allowance in Germany was reviewed in November 1984. Substantial reductions were involved, which came into effect on 1 January 1985. The reductions in the local overseas allowance are being delayed by two months beyond the normal implementation date.

Mr. Skinner: In answer to an earlier question about how many people are employed by the British Government abroad the Minister said that he did not know; he did not have a clue about how many people the Government employ. Now he tells us how much money the Government are spending on these people, although he does not know how many he has. If the Minister knows how much money the Government are spending, he ought to know how many British citizens are employed abroad.

Mr. Lee: The hon. Gentleman should listen more carefully to questions and answers. The original question that was put to me related to the nationality of those we employ, not to the numbers. I made it quite clear that in the Ministry of Defence we employ about 500,000 people — about 330,000 in the armed forces and 170,000 civilians.

Mr. Gorst: The last thing that I would wish to do is to accuse any of my right hon. or hon. Friends of complacency, and I do not. However, in view of my hon. Friend's answer a moment or two ago, may I ask him to have another look at the effect that the local overseas allowance may have in future upon the availability of both skilled and ordinary employees, particularly in the posting in west Germany. If there are no figures at the moment which prove that people will leave the services, will my hon. Friend carry out a survey to find out what are the attitudes that may lead to people leaving the services?

Mr. Lee: We shall keep the situation under review. There is a specific question on this point from the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright), which will be answered by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces. There was a reduction in the local overseas allowance for those serving in Germany, and this was not well received, but about 6,000 people benefited in almost all other postings, including the United States of America, Gibraltar, Hong Kong and Belize.

Service Personnel (Retention)

Mr. Cartwright: asked the Secretary of Stale for Defence whether he is considering any measures to improve the rate of retention of service personnel within the armed forces.

Mr. Stanley: The present Government have implemented the recommendations in successive reports, of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body. Retention throughout the lifetime of this Government has to date been significantly better in the armed forces overall than it was immediately prior to May 1979. The services have in hand certain measures to improve the retention rates of particular categories of personnel.

Mr. Cartwright: In view of the very angry reaction from service men in Germany to the cuts in the local overseas allowance — a reaction of which all hon. Members have been made aware—is the Minister saying that what are real cuts in the living standards of those personnel will not lead to any problems over retaining key personnel in Germany?

Mr. Stanley: As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said, we are all aware of the disappointment that was felt in Germany about the outcome of the LOA review. I remind the House, as my hon. Friend explained in the Adjournment debate on 20 May, that the LOA is not pay but is in addition to pay to compensate service men for the differential in the cost of living between the United Kingdom and overseas. When that differential narrows the LOA is reduced, and when it widens it is increased. It has to be seen in that light. The overall view in the three services across the world is that the LOA is an important protection for service men so that they know that when they are posted overseas they will not suffer a major reduction in take-home income because of having to bear the increased costs of the overseas postings to which they are sent.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the reduction of the LOA, particularly in BAOR—I have just returned from a visit there because my son is serving in that part of the world—has had a dreadful effect not only upon young officers but on skilled NCOs? Is he aware that these young people are likely to come out of the Army, as my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller) said, as soon as their period of service is ended? Therefore, will my hon. Friend take up some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) in a recent Adjournment debate and look at the possibility of providing further free transport to and from Germany and the United Kingdom?

Mr. Stanley: My hon. Friend has already kindly written to me on that point and I shall be sending him a considered reply. We are continually looking at the various allowances that are available to our service men to try to ensure that we give them, within the limits of justifiable public expenditure, the best possible conditions of service package. We shall continue to do that.

Mr. Ashdown: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that one of the things that keeps service men in the service is professional pride in their job? Does he realise that the Government's cost-cutting exercise—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman speaks from personal experience.

Mr. Ashdown: Does the Minister realise that the present cost-cutting exercise undertaken by the Ministry of Defence has resulted in a reduction in training ammunition for the services and has meant that in many cases they are not able to afford the fuel for aircraft and military transport that is needed for effective training? What will the Minister do to ensure that there are reasonable professional standards in the services?

Mr. Stanley: Judging by the enormous increase in real terms — 20 per cent. — under this Government, professional satisfaction among our service men is at a higher level than it was when the hon. Gentleman decided to come out of the services.

Mr. Stokes: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in spite of the marked increase in morale in all the armed forces since 1979, there has been some deterioration in the services in recent months, particularly among Army officers, and some disquiet about their future and that of other ranks? Is this not a matter of the gravest importance, into which we should look very carefully?

Mr. Stanley: I can confirm that the Department, and Ministers as they go around the services, are very much aware of my hon. Friend's point. That is why we are continuing, with the principal personnel officers, to look for ways in which we can do our best to improve overall conditions of service for the armed services. Our record on service pay is altogether better than that of our predecessors.

Mr. O'Neill: Is it not the case that the rate of outflow of naval officers is reaching crisis proportions and that it is now the highest figure since the 1970s? Is he aware that in the recent Southampton incident, involving a collision, there was a direct relationship between the lack of experienced officers and the difficulties in which the ship became involved? Is it not arch complacency for the Government to say that officers are in good heart when they are leaving the Navy in such dramatic numbers?

Mr. Stanley: I think that the hon. Gentleman is in a very poor position to accuse the Government of complacency. I remind him that in the financial year 1978–79, the last financial year of the Labour Government, premature voluntary retirements by men in the armed services had risen to 4·4 per cent., which is a record high over the last 10 years. This is in comparison with the last financial year 1984–85, for which the figure was 2·5 per cent.—a very substantially lower figure than when this Government came into office.

Chemical Weapons

Mr. Greenway: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the proportion of Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Warsaw pact defence expenditure devoted to producing chemical weapons and personnel trained to use them; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Stanley: It is not possible to isolate those elements of Warsaw pact defence expenditure which are related solely to chemical warfare. However, it is estimated that the Soviets now have some 300,000 tonnes of chemical warfare agents at their disposal, which is sufficient to cause death and incapacitation on a massive scale.

Mr. Greenway: Is my hon. Friend also aware that 191 Soviet divisions have current training in this area, and that since we have no chemical weapons ourselves we need to look at this very carefully? What is my hon. Friend saying in response to the NATO supreme commander's calls for a specific response to this terrible challenge?

Mr. Stanley: I can certainly confirm what my hon. Friend says about the very extensive training and equipping of Soviet forces with not merely a defensive capability, but an offensive chemical capability. As to the Government's policy, it was set out in the answer which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend), when she said:
The facts are that Britain abandoned its chemical warfare capability in the late 1950s. There has been no change in Government policy since then, nor is any change now proposed. However, as a responsible Government, we have a duty to keep defence policy under review in the light of what my hon. Friend said about the massive Soviet capability in chemical weapons." —[Official Report, 10 January 1985; Vol. 70, c. 901.]

Mr. James Lamond: If that is an outline of the Government's policy, why did they not welcome the proposal made by Mr. Gromyko at the United Nations in 1982 when he put forward a detailed proposal suggesting that there be an end to the development, manufacture and deployment of chemical weapons, that existing stocks be destroyed under supervision, and that there be on the spot supervision to see that no further chemical weapons are developed? Why did the Government not welcome that?

Mr. Stanley: The hon. Gentleman seems not to be aware that we have been engaged in continuing negotiations on the chemical warfare treaty, which would have the very desirable effect of banning these weapons worldwide. The Government have played a very active and positive role in trying to make progress in those negotiations. We have contributed a whole series of working papers on the vital issue of verification and enforceability, but as yet there is no detailed agreement on how the verification provisions of that treaty can be operated. However, it is very much the Government's intention to go on working constructively towards the banning of chemical weapons.

Miss Foulkes: How do the Government intend to remedy the serious weakness that is posed to our troops in the central area in Germany?

Mr. Stanley: As I have said to the House, it is not part of the Government's policy to give themselves an offensive chemical weapon capability, but it is very much part of our policy to ensure that we give our own forces the best possible defensive equipment, and that we invest considerable sums in ensuring that their defensive equipment is kept up to date.

Mr. McNamara: Are the Government aware that Labour Members support the Government in their continuous efforts to try to get a ban on all manufacturing and deployment of chemical weapons? It is one aspect of the Government's policy which we fully support. Is the Minister also aware that there is considerable concern in the House that our major NATO ally, the United States, and its Administration, are still pursuing their policy of trying to get new chemical weapons developed for the United States forces in the NATO sphere? We urge Her


Majesty's Government to continue to put pressure upon the United States Administration not to take that foolhardy course of action.

Mr. Stanley: These are matters for the United States Administration. On this issue, as the hon. Gentleman will know, the President of the United States has recently set up a commission to advise himself on the policy way forward.

Defence Procurement

Mr. Thurnham: asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he will be reporting on potential savings on his defence procurement policy.

The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Adam Butler): The significant improvements in value for money which are resulting from our drive to extend competition in defence procurement have already been reported in this year's Statement on the Defence Estimates. Chapter 5 gives some notable examples, including the new Royal Air Force trainer, where the final price was as much as a third lower than the original estimate of what we might have had to pay. I also gave evidence to the House of Commons Defence Committee on 11 December 1984.
All our recent experience clearly indicates that there are further and greater potential savings to be achieved from the continuing exercise of our competition policy.

Mr. Thurnham: Is my right hon. Friend confident that he can achieve the savings that are implicit in the Government's future expenditure plans?

Mr. Butler: Of course, no targets are set, but if present trends continue I hope for a very good result. It is significant that during the last month for which I have complete figures more than two thirds of new contracts by value were brought about through competition or priced otherwise by reference to market forces.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Ql. Mr. Gareth Wardell: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 4 June 1985.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.

Mr. Wardell: As one of the aims of the social security review is to simplify the system, why will the Prime Minister not establish a legal minimum wage and retain wages councils rather than subsidise employers through the new family credit scheme?

The Prime Minister: There is a consultative document about the future of wages councils, which has still to be decided. Evidence shows that if we set a legal minimum wage that tends to lead to increased unemployment.

Mr. Latham: When my right hon. Friend met Mr. Shamir, the Israeli Foreign Minister, this morning, did she stress Britain's total commitment to resolution 242 and to the right of Israel to exist within secure borders?

The Prime Minister: We referred to the Camp David agreement, which sets out explicitly that the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people should be honoured. As my hon. Friend knows, we fully support resolution 242.

Mr. Kinnock: Can the Prime Minister explain why, in the social security proposals outlined yesterday, no figures were given for the amounts that the unemployed, the sick and disabled, pensioners and families may expect to receive under any new arrangements? Why were no figures given for the number of households which can expect to lose as a consequence of the loss of housing benefit?

The Prime Minister: In accordance with custom, we have still to decide the figures for this year's uprating— [Interruption]. It is according to custom. It is done either on a historical basis or on a forecast. We rejected the forecast and chose the historical basis. That means that we must wait for the May retail price index figures, which are not published until June—[Interruption.] That method has been approved by the House. It is more certain than forecasting. As we have yet to decide this year's figures, we are hardly likely to decide figures for two years hence.

Mr. Kinnock: We have been told that this is a major shake-up of the social security system. Is the Prime Minister really trying to tell us that after thousands of hours of civil servants’ time, endless wrangling in Government committees and three Cabinet meetings, she has no facts, no figures and no estimates? We are not asking for precise figures; we want dependable estimates of what the effect will be on families who need the benefit incomes of which they are about to be deprived.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman clearly drafted that supplementary question before he heard my reply to his original question. He might recall that even his Government determined the uprating annually on a forecast basis. We do it on a historical basis. His Government followed that procedure. We uprate each year and we like to know precisely what the figures are before we decide the uprating.

Mr. Kinnock: With the celebrated toings and froings, the postponed Cabinet meetings and the wrangles that took place, absolutely nobody can reasonably be expected to accept what the Prime Minister has said. Is it not a fact that she is trying to hide what the outcome of the proposals will be, and that even she is ashamed of her proposals? Can she not give figures? Is she afraid? Is she innumerate, or simply mendacious?

The Prime Minister: No, Mr. Speaker, factual. There has been an annual uprating of social security benefits for many years. That is the fact. It is only the right hon. Gentleman who is capable of ignoring the facts. He cannot be expected to be believed if he does.

Mr. McCrindle: Does the Prime Minister think that we ought to draw any conclusions from the fact that the Leader of the Opposition is no longer prepared to leave social security matters to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher)?

The Prime Minister: I am not sure whether that is an improvement or otherwise.

Mr. Steel: Will the Prime Minister confirm one aspect of the proposals announced yesterday? Is it the case that elderly people on low incomes, living in purpose-built


housing, will in future find themselves losing part of their rate rebate and also, unless they are on supplementary benefit, housing benefit as well? If that is the case, does the Prime Minister not recognise that that means that many elderly people will not be able to afford to go on living in accommodation which successive Governments have encouraged to be specially built for them?

The Prime Minister: In the Green Paper, as the right hon. Gentleman is aware, it is intended that everyone shall be expected to pay some contribution towards rates, save possibly those on supplementary benefit. I think it is right that everyone should be expected to make a contribution towards rates so that we do not have a position in which those who make no contribution at all can demand enormous increases in local authority expenditure at the expense of other people.

Sir Ian Gilmour: Can my right hon. Friend clear up one point? Why is it suggested that everybody should have to make a contribution to rates when we understand that rates are to be abolished?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend will have heard that point referred to in my right hon. Friend's statement yesterday, if in fact he heard it. In the meantime, there are rates. We cannot say what will happen if we bring forward legislation to change rates to other taxes.

Mr. Kirkwood: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 4 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Kirkwood: Returning to the dearth of information in terms of detailed figures in the social security review, may I ask the Prime Minister to confirm that in the Rowe report on housing benefit, paragraph 319 refers to the detailed analyses and computer studies that were available. Why have the Government not made them available to the House? I warn her that if she does not do that, and does not put some arithmetical flesh on the bones of the new structure, she will stand accused of wilfully attempting to stymie comment or, worse, she will be accused of political cowardice.

The Prime Minister: No, Mr. Speaker. This is a Green Paper. If the hon. Member looks in some of the separate volumes he will find many figures already there on a number of things. There are far too many to have been absorbed in the short time that the paper has been out. We are not yet prepared to put figures to particular benefits for very good reasons because we believe in sound finance — [Interruption]. Yes, Mr Speaker. It was the Government whom the right hon. Gentleman's party supported who did not believe in sound finance. It was the Labour Government who took us to the International Monetary Fund. We believe in sound finance and we shall wait until we are nearer the time to determine the uprating. It is the Labour party that believes in spend, spend, spend, with no thought of where the burden will be put on the working population.

Mr. Forth: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 4 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Forth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the present social security system to which the Opposition

seem irretrievably wedded is so complex that many people in need do not take up the benefits to which they are entitled? Does she therefore believe that the bold reforms proposed yesterday by our right hon. Friend will enable many people in real need to take up benefits to which they are entitled—something effectively denied them by the Opposition?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Mr Speaker. I hope that it will also enable most of those entitled to benefit to understand how the benefits are calculated, which is virtually impossible at the moment.

Mr. Foot: Can the Prime Minister tell us whether the real figures which have been discussed in Cabinet and which were suppressed in the Green Paper will be published in the White Paper?

The Prime Minister: We have yet to determine what the upratings and figures will be. I said earlier that we had not yet decided on the upratings, which are due to take place in November. It is, therefore, not the time to decide what will happen in a few years’ time.

Mr. Tracey: Given the prediction that there will be many more pensioners in the first quarter of the next century and the fact that the Opposition would change nothing, will my right hon. Friend confirm the estimate of one leading journal that our children could be paying a basic income tax rate of up to 45 per cent. to fund pensions?

The Prime Minister: Bearing in mind the promises that the Opposition regularly make for increases on everything, this country would soon be bankrupt with the policies that they propose.

Mr. Loyden: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 4 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Loyden: At a time of mass unemployment and growing poverty, how can the Prime Minister justify what will clearly be seen as a blatant and vicious attack upon the poorest sections of our community? Is it not a fact that the Prime Minister fails absolutely to understand the reality of poverty and that her intention is to make the poor pay for the crisis which she and her Government have brought about?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to the statement made yesterday he would have heard that one of the objects of restructuring the welfare state is to see that those in need, especially needy families who are in work as well as those out of work, profit more from the social welfare system than they do at present.

Mrs. Rumbold: Some years ago the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins), in a different incarnation, said that the permissive society was a civilised society. In the light of the recent football hooliganism, would my right hon. Friend care to comment on whether that might be the approach of the Social Democratic party to such behaviour?

The Prime Minister: In any society, we all have to live by rules. We all have to uphold those rules and the law. Beyond that, we live within our own self-discipline or become prey to every whim, appetite and instinct. Most of us prefer to live by the rules of society.

Mr. Cartwright: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 4 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Cartwright: Does the Prime Minister stand by the suggestions made by some of her Ministers that any pay settlement for the nurses which is above 3 per cent. must be paid for by savings inside the National Health Service? Does that not mean that a pay settlement for nurses which is only at the rate of inflation will result in cuts in nurses’ jobs? Is that not an appallingly unfair way to treat a dedicated profession?

The Prime Minister: I hope that the decision on the pay review bodies will be announced shortly. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that if everything demanded is in the upward direction the burden on other taxpayers will be enormous. Therefore, we have to live in total within the means that have been set out in the White Paper.

Sir Anthony Kershaw: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that the social security changes that were announced yesterday are simpler, fairer and saner than ever before? Nevertheless, when my right hon. Friend, as Prime Minister, reviews the position in the year 2010, will she ensure that I receive the pension that I deserve?

The Prime Minister: I believe that our proposals can be properly financed and delivered. That would not be so unless we had embarked upon this exercise to restructure the social services.

Mr. Madden: Does the Prime Minister understand that the resentment felt by many people in Bradford when the Bradford fire disaster was linked with the riot in Birmingham has been greatly intensified by the linking of the Bradford and Birmingham incidents with the Brussels incident? Will the right hon. Lady instruct Mr. Justice

Popplewell to complete his inquiry into the Bradford disaster quickly? When will she announce what money the Government will give for the rebuilding of the Valley Parade ground so that it can become a community sports facility serving all the people of Bradford?

The Prime Minister: The terms of reference of Mr. Justice Popplewell's inquiry have been set, and I believe that they were the right ones. Spectators who go to grounds must be protected on safety grounds and must be protected from hooliganism. Both aspects are being considered by Mr. Justice Popplewell, and I believe that that is absolutely right. The hon. Gentleman will have heard what I said yesterday about money. A good deal of money is going through the Football Trust and the Football Grounds Improvement Trust for these matters. Last year an extra £3·3 million was paid out of the Football Grounds Improvement Trust because there were no further applications for improvements. We are considering the finances through a working party, and all the groups concerned are represented on it. We shall need to know the results of that working party's inquiry, and what the fire investigators and surveyors say before we decide on giving any extra money for the grounds.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &amp;c.

Ordered,

That the draft Pool Competitions Act 1971 (Continuance) Order 1985 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Lang.]

CHILD ABDUCTION AND CUSTODY BILL LORDS

Ordered,

That the Child Abduction and Custody Bill [Lords] be referred to a Second Reading Committee.—[Mr. Lang.]

Rolls-Royce, Derby

Mrs. Margaret Beckett: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry today to release to the press on or about midday a written answer to the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope) giving notice that the Government's merchant banking friends are being given another chance to dip their spoon into the gravy by working on proposals to privatise Rolls-Royce? That move will put the jobs of thousands of people in my constituency at risk. Has a breach of privilege—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must listen carefully to this point of order.

Mrs. Beckett: Has a breach of privilege occurred in the timing of the answer? Its manner shows the Government's customary contempt for parliamentary democracy in not allowing hon. Members to question the proposal in the House.

Mr. Speaker: Did the hon. Lady say that the answer to the question was released before 3.30 pm?

Mrs. Beckett: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The answer should have been released at 3.30 pm and not before. That is the rule.

Mr. Alan Williams: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. That is a most helpful ruling. The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) is that the answer was released to the press before 3.30 pm. As far as we know, it will not be released to the House. What course of action is available to my hon. Friend? What breach of privilege has been committed?

Mr. Speaker: I shall look into the matter. If the answer was released to the press, it would have been embargoed until 3.30 pm and should certainly not have been published before that time.

Mr. Jack Straw: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I represent constituents who are employed by Rolls-Royce at Barnoldswick. I was telephoned earlier this afternoon by theLancashire Evening Telegraph and asked for my comments on this release by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. There was no suggestion when I was telephoned by the journalist that there was any embargo on the information.

Mr. Speaker: I shall look into the matter.

Local Government (Proportional Representation)

Mr. David Alton: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the single transferable vote system of proportional representation for all local government elections in the United Kingdom.
Arguments for proportional representation have been heard many times in the House, and will no doubt be heard many times again. But, day by day and week by week, the need for the reform of the absurd, undemocratic and unrepresentative system which has blighted our nation for generations grows ever more clear.
Many people outside the House must wonder how a Government can be elected when their vote decreased by 700,000 in the general election, yet their majority increased to 140 seats, when only about one in three of electors voted for that party. But that was two years ago, and I am sure that all Conservative Members will have noticed the recent opinion polls by Gallup and Marplan. The handicaps with which they are now faced have been suffered by third parties under the first-past-the-post system for many years, and are well known by my right hon. and hon. Friends in the alliance. If any Conservative Member would like me to explain them, I should be more than happy to do so, but if they prefer an academic opinion they should read the pamphlet written by Dr. Gordon Reece, which is available from the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire). It explains with admirable clarity that the Conservative party would be reduced to a rump of 66 seats on its present standing of 29 per cent. in the polls under the first-past-the-post system.
Nevertheless, many Conservative and Labour Members may remain doubtful about the introduction of proportional representation in elections to the House. I do not share their doubts, but I invite them to consider whether they extend to elections for local authorities, which is the subject of my Bill today. The electorate in the area of a local council, be it county, region, district or borough, is not being asked to elect a Government; it is being invited to choose men and women to deal with the problems of its community, and it deserves an electoral system which gives people the opportunity to have their views reflected in the council chamber.
That is not the present system, and examples of distortion in local government are not hard to find. In 1984, in Liverpool, 90,000 voters supported the Labour party and 100,000 people voted against it, yet a Militant administration was elected there with a majority of about 15 seats on the city council. In the same year in Edinburgh, 66,000 people voted for the Labour party and more than 100,000 voted against it, yet the Labour party has a majority on the council of six. The policies of those councils are well known, and Conservative Members have frequently deplored them, yet every Conservative Member who votes against my Bill today is saying, "I want those Left-wing policies to be implemented in those cities against the wishes of the majority of their inhabitants."
I would not want it to be thought that the Bill is aimed only at Labour-controlled councils. In 1982, in the London borough of Sutton, the Conservative party won just more than 50 per cent. of the vote. 1 fully accept that that would entitle the Conservatives to control the council, but I do


not accept that it entitles them to 82 per cent. of the seats. Only last month in Surrey county council the Conservatives won more than two thirds of the seats on fewer than half of the votes. Every Labour Member who votes against the Bill today is saying: "I want Conservative policies implemented in Surrey against the wishes of the majority of the people."
The Bill is not aimed at any party. It does not seek to stop parties from winning absolute control of local councils, but it will stop them from achieving such power if the electorate does not agree with them. The results of our apology for an electoral system are often ludicrous. In 1982, in the London borough of Brent, the Conservatives won 6 per cent. more votes than did Labour, but finished with fewer seats. In the same year in Islington the Labour party took 51 of the 52 seats on just more than 50 per cent. of the vote. The Conservative party won 24 per cent. of the vote—1 per cent. more than the alliance—yet it was rewarded with no seats compared with our one. In Tunbridge Wells in the same year, again on just more than half the vote, the Conservative party took all 16 seats.
How can anyone pretend that such outcomes are justified? How can it be right not to have any minority interest representation, or only a derisory representation? How can it be right for total, almost unchallenged, power over the affairs of any local community to be vested in the hands of any one party?
That the powers are often abused is all too evident. Rigged agendas, denial of the right of democratic debate and the appointment of council officers on the basis of their political views happens in authorities such as Liverpool where the majority party is grossly over-represented. In Tammany town halls, officials know that their future is dependent on their relations with the members of a single political party. In such circumstances, the majority party may believe that it can get away with anything.
The report of the Royal Commission on standards of conduct in political life stated:
The local authorities most vulnerable to corruption have tended to be those in which one political party has unchallenged dominance. Not only are such authorities at particular risk because of absence of an effective opposition which can scrutinise their decisions, but investigations and the making of complaints in such areas may also be inhibited by the feeling that there is no way round the party machine".
The Bill seeks to end that. It would introduce the single transferable vote system of elections to local government elections everywhere. Under the system voters elect a number of councillors for each ward. They number the candidates in order of preference on their ballot papers, and thus can transfer their lower preferences between parties, within parties, and even to independents. They can vote for whom they like and will be sure that, whatever the choice, their vote will not be wasted—unlike under the present system—since if their first choice candidate is not elected their vote will transfer to their second choice and so on.
Evidence from other countries which already use that system show that it results in the election of more women and more representatives of ethnic minorities. It results in a higher turnout, which is of special importance for local government.
Evidence from opinion polls in the United Kingdom shows that this system, or any other PR system, is supported by a large majority of the population. It is also supported in the House of Lords. Earlier this year Lord

Blake, the distinguished Conservative historian, pressed for such a measure and a Bill passed through all its stages without Division.
My Bill should commend itself to the House. It commands support from all parties and there may even be some support for it in the Government. I draw attention to the comment by the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) who, when referring to parental choice, in a debate on appeals procedure under the Education Act 1980 said:
There is a similar disappointment for the people who voted Conservative in Stockport, North and those who voted Labour in my constituency. They might ask what the point is in voting. Whatever people may think of the person who represents them, it is a funny system. People vote and then find that they are not represented."—[Official Report, 20 December 1982; Vol. 34, c. 802.]
I hope that hon. Members will support the Bill, which allows proportional representation to be tested at a level at which it is most clearly needed. It will sometimes lead to parties having no overall majority on a council; but so does our present system, as I am sure everyone who has studied the results of the county council elections is well aware. Most importantly, the Bill will bring back to local government democracy, representativeness, and accountability.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to oppose the motion?

Mr. Skinner: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I shall not take long to oppose it, but some of us are more than a little tired of hearing Liberal spokesmen talking about proportional representation and transferable votes. I think that the Liberals want proportional representation in local government because there is such a row between the Liberals and the Social Democrats that they want the opportunity to stand against one another. That is the plan. If we are not careful, we shall finish with something like the system in Northern Ireland. Is not that a wonderful hotch-potch?—[Interruption.] I did not do that.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We should not be considering what the hon. Gentleman did not do.

Mr. Skinner: I am opposing the Bill because I believe that a majority in the House wants to ensure that we do not allow it to go forward.
There have just been elections in Northern Ireland on a transferable vote system. We can see the result. According to the news today, all hell has been let loose in various councils. They have had to bring in the police— [Interruption.] — and countless other incidents have occurred—[Interruption.]—

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is generally accepted in the House that hon. Members listen to speeches — [Interruption.]As one who listens to speeches, I object most strongly to the so-called alliance rabble barracking my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) —[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I entirely —[Interruption.] Order. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) has raised a point of order with me, not with the alliance. I agree with the hon Gentleman.

Mr. Skinner: I am pleased that you agree, Mr. Speaker. I shall not complain about the hooligan-type conduct of the Liberals and Social Democrats because they do it continually. I do not need an extra microphone, as the leader of the Liberal party does. He had an extra mike put in at a cost of £10,000, and there is an extra one on the Tory Benches—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us get back to the subject.

Mr. Skinner: I was just trying to explain that it does not worry me what the alliance does, because at the end of the day there will be fewer of them after the general election that there are now irrespective of whether they have the local government transferable vote.
>
The Liberal party and the Social Democratic party can agree on hardly anything. I should like to know what the local government candidates would do on matters affecting policy. Would they be able to put out joint manifestos — [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft) is rabbiting on again. Would they put out joint manifestos on the abolition of the welfare state? The leader of the Social Democratic party is quite anxious to see the changes that have been put forward by the Government. However, the Liberals are not very happy about it, or at least they have slight reservations—not in principle, simply on the arithmetic. Therefore, it would be interesting to see those manifestos.
I suspect that we would have not joint selection for candidates in local government, but almighty rows based not on democracy but on some sort of quasi-regional vote, in which delegates would come from the various areas —[Interruption.] No, that is absolutely wrong.
Those are some of the problems that would occur. I do not believe that the Bill will get very far because the Government will kill it as they have killed many others on a Friday — [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Leeds, West wish to intervene?

Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: I cannot.

Mr. Skinner: I am prepared to break with precedent.

Mr. Meadowcroft: Standing Orders do not allow it.

Mr. Skinner: I appreciate that.
The cause of proportional representation, rather than being on the upward trend, is now, according to the Liberals and Social Democrats in their pamphlets, going downhill just a little bit. I do not want to over-egg the pudding, but I read a pamphlet the other day by the alliance which said that whereas it had been generally in favour of proportional representation for everybody in the British Isles, it now had some reservations about the Orkney and Shetland constituency, and Caithness and Sutherland — [HON. MEMBERS: "And the Isle of Wight."] Indeed. The reason is, rather strangely, that members of the alliance realise that they could not guarantee that their candidates in those three parliamentary constituencies would win on the basis of a transferable vote. They are happy with the present system for Orkney and Shetland, Caithness and Sutherland and Isle of Wight so that they can keep their Members of Parliament. We are witnessing the alliance parties indulging in hypocrisy. We oppose the motion so that we can establish clearly in the House that there is a massive majority against this barmy idea—another one—from the Liberals this afternoon.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and Nomination of Select Committees at Commencement of Public Business):—

The House divided: Ayes 29, Noes 188.

Division No. 224]
[3.50 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Ashdown, Paddy
Ottaway, Richard


Best, Keith
Penhaligon, David


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Cartwright, John
Rathbone, Tim


Faulds, Andrew
Squire, Robin


Freud, Clement
Steel, Rt Hon David


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Gower, Sir Raymond
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Hanley, Jeremy
Wallace, James


Howells, Geraint
Wigley, Dafydd


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Jenkins. Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)



Kennedy, Charles
Tellers for the Ayes:


Knox, David
Mr. A. J. Beith and


Meadowcroft, Michael
Mr. Archy Kirkwood.


Meyer, Sir Anthony




NOES


Abse, Leo
Fookes, Miss Janet


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Ashby, David
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Forth, Eric


Barnett, Guy
Foster, Derek


Bell, Stuart
Fry, Peter


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Gale, Roger


Bidwell, Sydney
Galley, Roy


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Blackburn, John
Garrett, W. E. 


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
George, Bruce


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Glyn, Dr Alan


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Gorst, John


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Grant, Sir Anthony


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Grist, Ian


Bruinvels, Peter
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Buck, Sir Antony
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Caborn, Richard
Hardy, Peter


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Cash, William
Harris, David


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Harvey, Robert


Cohen, Harry
Hawkins, Sir Paul (SWN'folk)


Coleman, Donald
Haynes, Frank


Colvin, Michael
Hayward, Robert


Coombs, Simon
Heffer, Eric S. 


Cowans, Harry
Henderson, Barry


Crouch, David
Hickmet, Richard


Crowther, Stan
Hicks, Robert


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hind, Kenneth


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Holt, Richard


Dickens, Geoffrey
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Dormand, Jack
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Dubs, Alfred
Irving, Charles


Duffy, A. E. P. 
Janner, Hon Greville


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
John, Brynmor


Eadie, Alex
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Eastham, Ken
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Edwards, Bob(Wh'mpt'n SE)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Eggar, Tim
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Ellis, Raymond
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Emery, Sir Peter
Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Lamond, James


Evennett, David
Leadbitter, Ted


Fallon, Michael
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Favell, Anthony
Lester, Jim


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)






Lightbown, David
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Litherland, Robert
Rogers, Allan


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Rowlands, Ted


Lord, Michael
Sheerman, Barry


Loyden, Edward
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Shersby, Michael


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
 Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Maclean, David John
Silvester, Fred


McQuarrie, Albert
Sims, Roger


McWilliam, John
Skinner, Dennis


Madden, Max
Soley, Clive


Marek, Dr John
Spearing, Nigel


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Spencer, Derek


Martin, Michael
Stanbrook, Ivor


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Stern, Michael


Maude, Hon Francis
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stokes, John


Maxton, John
Stott, Roger


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Straw, Jack


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Terlezki, Stefan


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Thorne, Stan (Preston) 


Moynihan, Hon C.
Thornton, Malcolm


Murphy, Christopher
Thurnham, Peter


Nellist, David
Torney, Tom


Nelson, Anthony
Tracey, Richard


O'Brien, William
Trotter, Neville


Onslow, Cranley
Twinn, Dr Ian


Page, Sir John (Harrow W)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Viggers, Peter


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Parry, Robert
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Pawsey, James
Wareing, Robert


Pendry, Tom
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Pike, Peter
Welsh, Michael


Portillo, Michael
Wheeler, John


Price, Sir David
Wiggin, Jerry


Proctor, K. Harvey
Winnick, David


Raffan, Keith
Wood, Timothy


Randall, Stuart



Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)
Tellers for the Noes


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Mr. Kevin Barron and


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours.

Question accordingly negatived.

Oral Answers to Questions — Opposition Day

[I2TH ALLOTTED DAY]—considered

Rural Communities in Wales

Mr. Brynmor John: I beg to move, That this House, noting with alarm the Government's complacency in the face of deteriorating economic and social conditions in rural communities in Wales, urges the Government to change to policies which by improving transport and other services and employment opportunities will reverse the decline of those communities.

Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. John: Even in a week when a great deal of our attention has been focused on the malaise that affects urban communities, it is right that we should consider this afternoon the problems of rural communities in Britain,, in particular those in Wales. It is necessary to state, so that Conservative Members do not get the wrong idea, what the motion does not say. It does not say that rural depopulation and decline started with the election of a Conservative Government in 1979. Since members of the Welsh Grand Committee know that the Secretary of State's political memory goes back only to 1976, let me assure him that we do not say that it started then, either. It predates 1976.

Mr. David Harris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. John: I think that the hon. Gentleman ought to refrain from commenting until he has heard a little more.

Mr. Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the hon. Gentleman has mentioned what the motion does not say, may I have your ruling on whether its true meaning ought to have been put before the House? May I also ask the hon. Gentleman to explain why the words "Brecon and Radnorshire" are not included in the motion?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) has been on his feet for only two minutes I took his opening remarks to be a preamble before reaching what the motion actually says.

Mr. John: That is absolutely right, Mr. Speaker. There is no more coincidence regarding Brecon and Radnorshire in the motion that is being moved by the Opposition than there is in the announcement this morning by the Welsh office that Brecon and Radnor have been selected for a new experiment in education affecting rural Wales.
If I may complete the point that I was making before the intervention of the hon. Member for St Ives (Mr. Harris), for many years there has been a history of shortage of opportunity which has led to the ablest and the most ambitious leaving rural Wales. There have been fewer facilities for people in rural Wales. That much we must accept. What is completely new in the situation is the acceleration of this decline after 1979. So far from the Government's policies and priorities having tried to arrest that decline, they have contributed to it. The Government's approach is wrong. Their complacent attitude is wrong. Their policy and their attitudes must be changed.
I can understand why Thatcherites ask whether it is right for any community, whether rural or otherwise, to be artificially preserved. We say unequivocally that it is right for such communities to be preserved. Thatcherites should accept, as we do, that in so far as rural communities have been maintained since the Second World War this has been done by means of far-sighted public expenditure on health, education, transport amd employment. Nobody will deny that since the war British agriculture, the lynch pin of the rural economy, has been enabled to flourish by the expenditure of public money.
We must assess, if we can, the needs and aspirations of rural communities in Wales in order to reshape policies and create conditions in which it will be possible for everybody to remain in those communities throughout their lives. The lack of one or more of the basic facilities is swelling the exodus and undermining the viability of rural areas. The lack of local employment is the most important factor in driving young people away from rural communities at an alarming rate. For the want of convenient education, families with young children are being forced to choose between moving and subjecting their children, from the most tender age, to sizable daily journeys to and from school.
Between January 1979 and January 1984, 41 primary schools were closed in the four most rural counties of Wales. Closures in Powis meant a reduction of over 7·5 per cent. To social isolation at home for those living in remote homes is added the isolation of children who are unable to play a full part in the social life of their schools, because their lives are dominated by the school bus timetable. They have to go home on the only available public transport.
Many of the schools were built before 1903. Over a quarter of the schools in Powys are in that category. Over 40 per cent. of the schools in Dyfed were also built before 1903. Those are the schools which Her Majesty's Inspectorate described in its recent report as "crumbling away". That was the headline which was to be seen in the Western Mail during the Whitsun recess.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the effects of sparsity of population are aggravated by the rate support grant formula which does not adequately recognise that sparsity and has led to chronic problems in areas such as Powys?

Mr. John: It is a cyclical problem. Because schools cannot be maintained parents are faced with the agonising choice of either moving or allowing their children to make long journeys to and from school. For the want of decent employment people move out of rural communities. This historic movement makes the unemployment figures seem better than they are in reality. Even though depopulation and the drift away from country areas masks unemployment, the unemployment rate is 17·3 per cent. in Dyfed, 18 per cent. in Clwyd, 18·2 per cent. in Gwynedd and 13·3 per cent. in Powys.
If people are lucky enough to find local work, the choice of jobs is limited and the rate of pay is much lower than the average for Great Britain. In 1983, gross average earnings in rural Wales were only 88·2 per cent. of the gross average earnings in Great Britain as a whole. The gap had widened by 2.5 per cent. in the two years between 1981–83, showing a widening disparity between

employment in the rural and urban communities. More up-to-date figures will show a further widening. That condemns many rural youngsters to unambitious, underpaid jobs and for the ambitious rural youngsters, even in these times of institutionalised mass unemployment, there is no freedom of choice in employment.
There are over 50,000 employed or self-employed in Welsh agriculture. Of these, over a third are in Dyfed, 18·5 per cent. in Powys and over 14 per cent. in both Clwyd and Gwynedd. Apart from its pivotal position in the rural community, agriculture is important as a source of livelihood. Everyone knows that the next decade will bring monumental changes in agriculture. The insupportability of the increasing commodity surpluses, which is now coming to crisis point, concern about the natural environment and questions about diet and health are all helping to bring about this change. Those engaged in agriculture are all anxious to begin discussing how to modify the current agriculture industry to effect these changes with the minimum dislocation.
People engaged in agriculture are still reeling from the fiasco of the unprepared imposition of the milk quota scheme, which brought ruin to some, hardship to many, and uncertainty to everybody. In scrabbling around to try to repair the blunders made by the milk scheme, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has fallen behind by almost six months in its payment of grants and allowances, and caused further hardship to the farming community in Wales.
The shambles demonstrates that there is almost a complete lack of confidence in the Government, for even in the midst of all this crisis, they are hesitant and unwilling to show any leadership. Doubts about the future will be avoided only if the Government issue a White Paper on the future of agriculture, and that is what the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is avoiding with much more energy than he devotes to defending our interests in Brussels.

Sir Anthony Meyer: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will favour the House with his solutions and suggestions for dealing with the problem of persistent surpluses of dairy products, and that he will not run off into suggestions that every country in the EEC should reduce its output, but not the United Kingdom.

Mr. John: I realise that a campaign of intense rehabilitation is being mounted by the hon. Gentleman to try to work his passage back into the good graces of his Front Bench. We all know how he wore the penitent white sheet in the last Welsh Grand Committee because he was pressed to do so. I said that the structural production of surpluses is insupportable. To anybody who was listening to me, that would have meant that I do not believe that they can continue. At the moment, we are facing the problem of cereal surpluses. The hon. Gentleman has said, and I agree, that if other measures can be taken, we should try to avoid artificial restrictions such as quotas. However, if necessary, I make it clear that some restriction that will cut the amount of unwanted cereals being harvested and stored should be taken.

Mr. Keith Raffan: The hon. Gentleman is not answering about milk.

Mr. John: The hon. Gentleman is not writing knocking copy for the Daily Telegraph but is taking part in a debate, so perhaps he will restrain himself for a little while.
There must be measures to restrict output. If price cutting can do so, by all means let that be so, although the present negotiations are unhappy. I criticise the milk quota scheme not because of quotas but because the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food went off one weekend saying that he would never accept quotas and came back the following Monday at the head of a quota scheme. There was no time to prepare for it, there had been inadequate preparation in the Ministry, it had not been anticipated and it brought unprecedented disaster to many people who made the mistake of taking the Minister at his word.
I have no doubt that the Government's reluctance is being masked by their Back Benchers. However, a White Paper on the future of agriculture in the next decade is desperately needed not because it will be a solution to all the problems but because a number of hard-pressed people in agriculture are pondering their future. Such a White Paper would be a welcome sign of what, if any, the Government's thinking on this matter is.
Health provision in rural areas is weak and distant. In many of the rural areas, there are some of the worst health problems. I again refer to perinatal mortality, in which Powys has the highest sub-regional rate in the United Kingdom. Despite that, many villages are without any surgery, hospital provision is being cut, whether by the closure of a whole hospital as with the geriatric hospital in Brecon or by the reduction in the number of beds, as with the 90 beds in the three hospitals serving the East Dyfed health district. Casualty and emergency treatment causes great problems for the inhabitants, in part because three of the four Welsh health authorities with rural areas consider themselves to be under-funded in hospital provision. In particular, in sparsely populated rural areas, this is inhibiting the development of community health service for the inhabitants.
Between 1980 and 1982, one in eight of the chemists, shops in Wales closed, and rural areas suffered far more than their fair share of that. Other measures necessary to support rural life, such as local shops and post offices, are declining. To make life tolerable, transport is needed for access to all facilities. Car ownership is high in Wales and is highest in Powys because of necessity, but not everyone can afford a car or is able to drive one. The poor, mothers with young children, the elderly and the infirm depend upon a public transport system that even now is inadequate. That is why I am alarmed by the Transport Bill, which will add to that problem. Its ban on cross-subsidies will stop the off-peak services that now run, because they will no longer be able to use commuter services to subsidise daytime services.
The privatisation that threatens the three largest bus companies, which now have reported losses, according to the Western Mail of 16 May, of £4·25 million, will cause even more severe cuts. That is bound to make the inhabitants of rural Wales feel as if they were marooned on a desert island. I beg the Government, for the sake of the health of Welsh rural communities, to rethink their policies on the Transport Bill.

Mr. Keith Best: Is it right that transport in rural areas should be subsidised by taxpayers and the ratepayers in the urban areas, in which case what message does the hon. Gentleman have for them, or is it right that rural transport services should be subsidised by the Government?

Mr. John: I thought that the Government's revenue came from taxpayers, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman is privy to information that I do not have. I have never been one to tell my urban electorate that the highest aim of government is higher take-home pay and lower taxes. I have always said that social public expenditure is necessary to preserve a healthy state of society in Britain. If that means the use by the population, through government, of subsidies for transport in rural areas, I am willing to stand by that and to advocate it. I hope that the hon. Member for Ynys Mon (Mr. Best) is as willing to say the same.
It is possible at present to see the impact of existing conditions on the communities of which we speak. Such communities are not only collections of people who happen to be living in an area at any given time. They also embody the culture and the cultural values of those societies. If one changes the composition of those communities or if, by indifference, one allows the composition of those communities to change, one is changing not only the very nature of the communities but the culture itself.
The latest population projections for rural Wales are that deaths will exceed births in those areas for the rest of the century. It is anticipated that there will be a rise in population — indeed, the Government's amendment to the Opposition motion speaks of a rising population. But where will this rise in population come from? It will come from outsiders moving into the area. In Dyfed, for example, inward migration may be as high as 2 per cent. per year.
Unless the Government shed their complacency and stop believing that the very existence of public services is a challenge to their virility, our country villages and small towns will be transformed into dormitory areas for the affluent young who work some distance away and retirement havens for the affluent elderly. Unless local employment and local services exist, one will abandon an all-age population structure in much of rural Wales.
Let me give some examples in support of that. In Wales, the proportion of retired to those at work is 31 to 100, but in Gwynedd at present it is 38 to 100, in Powys it is 35 to 100, and in Clwyd and Dyfed it is 34 to 100. All the rural communities have more retired people to working population than the Welsh average. That imbalance will worsen unless the Government stop destroying healthy communities for the many in favour of healthy bank balances for the few.
We must devote more public resources to increase opportunities locally of education, jobs, health and shopping. We must increase transport provision and adopt imaginative ideas, such as the social car plan, that will enable an immobile population to get to necessary services.

Sir Raymond Gower: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that many Welsh people who have worked all their lives in other parts of the United Kingdom have planned to retire in parts of Wales. I presume that the hon. Gentleman does not object to that.

Mr. John: Of course I do not object. However, I do object if the burden of retired people in any area so unbalances the structure of the population that it produces an unhealthy rather than a healthy society. I object if that happens because a Government, through indifference,


force away the young people, particularly young people with families, because there are no jobs or schools for them locally, and there are no surgeries and no health provision. If the Government provide all those services and allow the choice to be a completely free one, then I agree—let people come to enjoy the beauties of Wales in retirement. But, for heaven's sake, let us not drive one segment of the population out through benign neglect and then pretend that we are being hard if we draw attention to the fact that an abnormal number of retired people are coming into the area. The hon. Member for Ynys Môn will know that the problem of an imbalance of elderly people in an area imposes a great strain on hospital and medical services which is insupportable in view of the present provision of such services in rural Wales.
Above all, the Government must be seen to be active in shaping the future of rural Wales rather than appearing, as they do at present, as rather bored spectators of inexorable decline.
On 24 May 1985 there was a feature on the Secretary of State by the political correspondent of theWestern Mail in which the following paragraph appeared:
Mr. Edwards is allowed his limited freedom of action in the Principality—to subvert Thatcherite policies if necessary—as the reward for unswerving loyalty to the leader on the great national issues of the day.
We have to know now whether that estimate of his powers is true. If it is not, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will hasten to tell us, if only to avoid disappointment, but if it is true, then it is an opportunity and a challenge. By ignoring Thatcherite policies, the Welsh Office can start to strengthen rural Wales, giving us a vision of the future rather less hellish than the one we currently see. Alternatively, the right hon. Gentleman can choose not to exercise this power and, by his inertia, increase the spiral of decline in rural Wales.
All those who value Wales as a living organism, as a cultural heritage and as a trust to be passed on to future generations must call upon the right hon. Gentleman in the terms of the motion to wipe the sleep from his eyes and begin to lead the fight back.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. John Stradling Thomas): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
'recognises the difficulties faced by the farming industry and by rural communities in a period of change, but welcomes the reversal of the long period of depopulation in much of rural Wales, and supports the continued efforts of the Government to improve the services provided and to develop employment opportunities in the countryside.'. 
Our debate on rural communities in Wales today will lack the contribution from Tom Hooson that we would have had in different circumstances. As I think all hon. Members will agree, he was a great friend and defender of the rural areas of Wales, and he will be sorely missed.
Having listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John), I am sure that Tom Hooson would have regretted as much as I do the terms of the motion in the name of the Opposition. The terms are vague—as was the speech of the hon. Gentleman—ill-defined and do nothing to recognise the strengths of rural areas in Wales and the considerable developments there in recent years.
On the other hand, our policies are clear and effective. We must of course — there will be agreement on this point—continue to guard against depopulation. The hon. Gentleman in my view got himself into a slight trap. On the one hand, he says that we are driving people out, and on the other hand, despite the demographic points that he made, he says that outsiders are flooding in. He cannot have it both ways. We must ensure that the local economy draws from as wide a base of activities as possible, and we must recognise the need to sustain the social, cultural and environmental fabric. I agree with the cultural point made by the hon. Gentleman.
I think it is right to say that a debate on rural communities in Wales should start with agriculture. Milk quotas have dominated the past year. The hon. Gentleman was very critical of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and of the quota scheme, but in fact the main objectives of the outgoers scheme in England and Wales have been achieved. The majority of Welsh producers will benefit from the decision to bring back the quota of small producers to the 1983 production levels. Quota awarded by the tribunal fo exceptional hardship will also be met in full. Dairy producers will welcome the outcome of the common agricultural policy negotiations. A 1·5 per cent. increase in support prices is accompanied by a 1 per cent. fall in co-responsibility levy payable in 1985–86. I would be the first to recognise that difficulties remain. We are reviewing the situation to see what can be done, but, as is obvious to everybody, the room for manoeuvre is bound to be limited.
On beef and sheep, we have secured the continuation of the support mechanisms and successfully resisted the imposition of measures that would discriminate against United Kingdom producers. We have secured a significant amelioration of unsatisfactory aspects of the seasonal scale for sheepmeat. The industry has welcomed the increase in the wool guarantee price for the 1985 clip. Consumers will benefit from supplies of both lamb and beef at reasonable prices which would otherwise go to supplement the intervention stocks. There are lessons to be learnt from our recent experience. Sheep farmers demonstrated last year how responsive they can be to market signals. There was a decided shift in the marketing of Welsh lamb, especially leaner lamb, to take advantage of the higher prices available early and late in the season. Despite the problems they have faced, dairy farmers are adjusting their patterns of production to the quota. The hon. recognised none of those facts, which are absolutely essential to any debate on rural economy.
The new structures regulation has been widely welcomed. Assistance to farmers in the less-favoured areas will be continued. Fifteen thousand Welsh farmers now qualify for assistance following successful negotiation of the redefinition of the area in 1984. The industry has welcomed the wider grant coverage that is possible under the regulation. Decisions on the new capital grants scheme will be made shortly. That is not a picture of inertia or complacency, but of realistic action. — [Interruption.] I am not saying that everything is all right. There are many problems. However, it is not the picture of inertia or complacency suggested in the Opposition motion.

Mr. John: Does the Minister recognise that many people in Wales, including both the farming unions, are desperately waiting for the Government to indicate what


the future of agriculture in Wales will be? If the Government are not being complacent in refusing to issue a White Paper and to give guidance, what is the explanation?

Mr. Stradling Thomas: It is not a question of complacency. As was clear from the hon. Gentleman's speech, he has not one original idea or contribution to make, despite his strictures on milk quotas. It would be easy to rush in and produce White Papers or even to delay them. It is a fast-changing situation. Everyone agrees that there must be proper reform of the CAP. We are in Europe. Those facts must be recognised in the current position.
The impact of the new development of the paper mill at Shotton will be to create nearly 400 jobs either in or serving the mill and to provide a firm market for more than 800 people in the United Kingdom forestry industry. That is a development of first importance.
There is further evidence of our commitment to realistic action in the work of the three development agencies in encouraging enterprise in rural communities. Under our policies, growth is being stimulated within existing towns. The aim is to have self-sustaining communities as a centre and economic anchor for their surrounding areas.
Newtown has become a thriving community. Unemployment rates have remained consistently below the average for Wales. My right hon. Friend was especially pleased recently to be able to approve proposals to develop a major factory which will be used by Laura Ashley Ltd. as its base for a new phase of development resulting in 500 jobs and protecting 1,200 jobs in and around Mid-Wales.

Mr. Allan Rogers: In speaking of the activities of the Welsh Development Agency in Wales, will the Minister confirm that it is his Department's intention to privatise the commercial investment section of the WDA next year?

Mr. Stradling Thomas: No, Sir. To the best of my knowledge that is a piece of fiction. I have no way of confirming any such thing — [Interruption.] As others have said at this Dispatch Box, wait and see. I cannot confirm any such thing.
In total, some 6,500 job opportunities have been brought to mid-Wales through factories which Mid-Wales Development either owns or has sold. A further 800 will follow from factories now under construction or at an advanced stage of planning.
Since 1980 the Welsh Development Agency has completed over 200 new factories in rural Gwynedd, Clwyd and Dyfed. The provision of rural sites and factories now concentrates on smaller-scale units for the benefit of local industries, and in Gwynedd the agency has built rural workshops to provide premises for craft-based industries.
The agency has also been involved with the Wales tourist board in the sponsorship of tourism studies. Tourism is particularly important to rural areas and the Wales tourist board is hard at work in promotion and in giving advice and financial assistance over a wide area, including farm tourism.
The hon. Member for Pontypridd made some points about education provision. Let us look at the facts, not the misrepresentations. First, in real terms, expenditure on education in Wales has been virtually constant over the past five years — despite the massive fall in public

numbers. Secondly, expenditure on education per pupil is higher now in real terms than ever before. Thirdly, pupil-teacher ratios are at their best ever level. Fourthly, in a period of continually falling rolls, the education service in Wales has not only been maintained, as is clear from HMI reports but in many respects improved.
Of course I understand the problems of that local education authorities face in ensuring the most effective use of resources, including village schools, to secure what is in the best educational interests of our children, especially in sparsely populated areas. The answer must be founded in realism. The crucial need is to provide a system of education suited to the ages, abilities and aptitudes of the young people concerned. That may cause problems in the very small schools in our rural areas, and it is for that reason that we are supporting projects designed to improve the quality and range of the curriculum in such schools, as well as funding a research project in Powys that is looking at ways of supporting groups of small rural primary schools in a reasonable and cost-effective way.

Mr. Peter Hubbard-Miles: Does my hon. Friend agree that the standard of education depends to a great extent on the standard of teaching? Would not the standards of teaching in certain areas of Wales be greatly improved if the appointments system were taken out of the hands of politicians and put into the hands of the professionals? It should not be allowed to continue in the way supported by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers).

Mr. Stradling-Thomas: I know that that is a vexed question in many areas, not least in my hon. Friend's home patch.

Mr. John: If I accept what the Minister has said about the gradual improvement in funding under this Government, and how they will put matters rights, may I ask when the quarter of Powys schools and the 40 per cent. of Dyfed schools that are pre-1903 will start to be replaced?

Mr. Stradling-Thomas: The hon. Gentleman made great play in his speech of pre-1903 schools. It is the quality of provision with which we are concerned, not the age of the building. That is not a vital symbol. As resources become available, development in that direction, which is highly desirable, will continue — [Interruption.] As a matter of fact, almost every school that I attended was pre-1903—indeed, some were pre-1600.
Education cannot be divorced from training—we are planning one of the most dramatic increases ever undertaken in the quantity and quality of training in both urban and rural areas. Our aim is to bring more training, better training and, above all, more relevant training closer to the people who want it and the industries that need it.
To take specific examples, next year alone we plan in Dyfed, Gwynedd, Powys and Clwyd an increase of well over 60 per cent. in the number of people trained More generally, there are grants to help employers train and upgrade the skills of the work force; training for enterprise to help small businesses and those planning to set up such businesses to establish themselves and grow; access to information technology for adults as well as for the young people who have up to now so clearly benefited from such


training; and the extension of open access to technical education and training mainly for technicians and supervisors.
As part of these plans we have carried out a thorough-going review of the role of skillcentres. The existing skillcentre network needs to be rationalised, and in the context of this debate on rural communities I wish to say something about training in the area served by the Llanelli skillcentre.
It is our view, after careful consideration of all the arguments advanced by local interests, that the needs of the area of Dyfed currently served by the Llanelli skillcentre can be better and more effectively met by using local college and employer-based facilities, together with private trainers and making more use of the skillcentre at Port Talbot. It is intended to retain a smaller skillcentre training agency presence at Llanelli, probably at the Llanelli technical college, and to expand the use being made of the MSC-funded information technology centre in the town.
I do not for a second deny that for a small number of people, many of whom in any case already board away from home while training, some extra travelling will be involved. However, for the vast majority of people in the Llanelli area, in the area served by the west Gwent skillcentre, which is also to close, and throughout Wales, these plans offer a wider range of better training nearer home than at present.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: How will the closure of the skillcentre whose specific purpose was to provide for the mid-valley area in west Gwent bring training nearer to home when there is in everybody's estimation no adequate replacement for a skillcentre like that at that point?

Mr. Stradling Thomas: We will be expanding the facilities at Newport. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the local authority at Blaenau Gwent has a facility at the Tafarnaubach opportunities centre. In addition, discussions are going on with Gwent local education authority to make provision which in many cases will mean less travelling although I cannot say that in every instance. Also, we have made sure that the skill training agency and the training division of the MSC are prepared to be extremely flexible about timing and also to consider the extra cost involved for individuals who are put at a disadvantage.
In regard to transport, of course I agree that adequate provision for transport, both public and private, is vital for the future of our rural communities. The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) will recall once again that when he was Under-Secretary of State for Wales in 1977 he held a symposium at Aberystwyth to discuss what he described as a
steady decline in rural transport services".
Since then, of course, the decline has continued so that we now face a much greater problem than he did.

Mr. Kinnock: The services are being terminated.

Mr. Stradling Thomas: It is against this background of continuing decline that we have put so much emphasis upon taking positive steps to make radical and lasting improvements to public transport services such as the support for railways announced by my right hon. Friend in the Welsh Grand Committee on 15 May. British Rail

has also recently announced that it has already spent £1·3 million on strengthening the Barmouth viaduct and that these works are to be completed in May 1986. These major investments will mean better, more cost-effective services for the rural communities served.

Mr. Best: Will my hon. Friend say whether the view of the Leader of the Opposition that rural transport in Wales is to be terminated is commensurate with the announcement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in the Welsh Grand Committee on 15 May that £100,000 will be provided for the Mid-Wales and Cambrian line and £76,000 for the central Wales line from Mid-Wales Development? Is that commensurate with the knowledge of the Leader of the Opposition or does he need to do a little more homework?

Mr. Stradling Thomas: I would say that it is not commensurate.
In regard to buses, our efforts are concentrated on the proposals contained in the Transport Bill. I do not accept the amendment that has been tabled on the Order Paper in the name of the Alliance. Our proposals will help to improve and modernise rural transport by encouraging new, more responsive services which are often better suited to rural areas than the conventional big bus, and by introducing a system of competitive tendering for subsidy, thereby ensuring that local authorities get better value for the subsidies they will be continuing to provide. A point was made earlier about cross-subsidy. It has never seemed to me that there is any logic in relatively low income people in some areas having to cross-subsidise perhaps better-off people in other areas.
Our proposal for an innovation grant will act as a pump primer for new transport schemes for rural areas. The hon. Member for Pontypridd said that he wanted imaginative ideas. I am sure he welcomes the innovation grant. In addition, to ensure continuity of services during the transition from the old to the new system, we are making available £50 million over four years in Great Britain as a whole in the form of a transitional rural bus grant. In the first full year this grant will amount to £20 million.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the Minister of State tell us how he expects such an innovation grant to help in the provision of continuing services for routes which are uneconomic anyway? What is the use of an innovation grant rather than a continuing grant? Secondly, will he tell us when we shall hear that a decent road is to be provided across mid-Wales for the public transport services to run on?

Mr. Stradling Thomas: The innovation grant is intended to encourage new ideas to find out what profitable and imaginative schemes—

Mr. Alex Carlile: Everyone knows the answer to that.

Mr. Stradling Thomas: The hon. Gentleman may be omniscient but I certainly think that the day of the big bus trundling empty round country lanes is finished. Therefore, new and imaginative ideas, as called for by the hon. Member for Pontypridd, will be encouraged by the innovation grant. It is not meant to sustain the system ad infinitum. As the hon. Gentleman will know, a massive road building programme is laid down in "Roads in Wales". We are proceeding as rapidly as possible with that and hope in the not-too-distant future to provide better information and more up-to-date facts.
Health was referred to by the hon. Member for Pontypridd. The Government have remained committed to the development of hospital services in Wales with full regard to the needs of rural areas. The new district general hospital at Bangor is now fully open and those at Wrexham, Bridgend and Morriston are in their final stages of building and all should be open within a year. These hospitals have a wide rural catchment area. The community hospital at Mold has been open for over a year and has received wide acclaim. Construction of the new community hospital at Ystradgynlais is well under way and should be completed early next year. Those hospitals allow people to be treated nearer their homes when they do not require the more highly specialised facilities of a district general hospital. All those major developments have been funded by my Department.

Mr. Gareth Wardell: Does the Minister agree that it was not sensible for the West Glamorgan area health authority to decide to close the casualty department at the Singleton hospital? That has deprived constituents from virtually the whole of the Gower peninsula. The tourist inflow into that area in the summer will make it extremely difficult, in terms of time, for people to reach the accident centre at Morriston hospital.

Mr. Stradling Thomas: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. He will be aware that it is a matter for decision by the area health authority. For us to spend our time second-guessing at the Dispatch Box is not the appropriate way to proceed.
My analysis has concentrated mainly on what is being done by way of public sector support to help encourage and stimulate the private sector. The Opposition will try to deny that this is a success story in difficult changing circumstances. They are wrong, and they will not succeed. The infrastructure is being developed. A wider range of industrial and service employment is being created while agriculture will continue its central contribution to the way of life and work. Most rural communities, far from being under threat, can now look forward to a future in which the prospect is not of migration but of increasing opportunities and a better quality of life.
I commend the amendment to the House.

Mr. John Morris: This Session, the House cannot have heard a more complacent speech from a Minister opening a debate of this kind than that of the Minister of State. If we were at the Royal Welsh show as opposed to the House of Commons, I am confident that the Minister would receive first prize for complacency. He would have the blue riband and be led around the grandstand, because he has failed to recognise that there is any problem in rural Wales.
I was born in rural Wales, most of my education was in rural Wales, and my home is in rural Wales. I therefore have some knowledge of what goes on. The economy is bound up with three aspects of our life there. The first is agriculture and forestry, the second is tourism and the third is small industry. I leave on one side the service industries, local government, the universities and some defence work. There is nothing constant in this world, but some things are more constant than others. There is a greater degree of inconstancy and uncertainty in the three primary points to which I have referred.
I shall deal immediately with agriculture as a supplement to what was said so well by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John). Agriculture in Wales feels that it has been let down badly. It has no confidence in the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or in the Secretary of State for Wales. They fail to recognise a growing problem and when they went to speak in Brussels allegedly on behalf of British agriculture, they failed miserably. The result: was that action had to be taken far too quickly, without preparation and with insufficient warning to the industry. That caused misery and agony in the dairy industry.
If the Minister is unaware of the deep feelings in the Welsh dairy industry, he has no idea of what is happening in Welsh agriculture. The result has been a loss of confidence. It is all very well for him to say that he is confident about the future of Welsh agriculture, but when it comes down to pounds and pence would he today be able to put his hand on his heart and say to Welsh farmers that the climate for investment was right? If he is confident of that, will he firmly say in what sector it is right to invest?
Yesterday, we had a problem, which remains, with the over-production of milk. Today, the problem is cereals but that does not affect us so much. Tomorrow, the problem for beef and lamb will be much greater, I fear. I welcome every effort that is made to improve the quality, availability and attraction of Welsh lamb on the continent, where I believe there is a growing market.
The Minister must recognise that there is a change in people's eating habits. People are going off fats. If one talks to young people today, one finds that there is a tremendous growth in vegetarianism. There is a reaction against red meat. It is therefore time for the Government to recognise that today's fads may well be tomorrow's fashions. Welsh agriculture should receive some sign of where it is to go, upon what it should concentrate and what its prime aims in the future should be. It cannot afford a cut in another part of its production without greater hardships. When the Minister says that dairy farmers are adjusting, he means that they are tightening their belts.
In the Welsh countryside, we are all aware that the dependence upon agriculture is not solely that of the farmer or his farm worker; there is a four to one dependence, which was the factor that we used. When we add the carpenter, the schoolteacher, the cabinet maker and the rest there is a repercussive effect upon the agricultural economy. If the Minister goes to a garage, a shop, a restaurant or anywhere else in rural Wales, as I hope he will during the summer recess, everyone will tell him how tight are the belts in rural Wales and what the repercussive effects of the difficulties are upon agriculture.
The Government have had to cave in to the position in Brussels, but they must recognise that they have done agriculture a great disservice by not warning it sufficiently or taking adequate steps in time. Are they prepared for the next round of cuts in whatever product that may be? Will they give the industry sufficient warning in the future so that there can be planning and so that those young people who want to invest in agriculture can do so with confidence? I see the reports of the prices that farms are fetching, and the picture that I have is one of a lack of confidence in agriculture in rural Wales.
I come now to the problem of transport in rural Wales. In the old days, Brecon and Radnor had the highest proportion of car owners in the country. Car ownership


then was not a luxury; it was a necessity because there was no other means of transport for dozens of people. When the head of the household has to use the family car to go to work because there is no other transport, the wife, the youngsters and the elderly are left with no transport. I welcome the innovations that we have heard described today, given that the Government are pursuing their philosophical dogma and selling the nation's buses and having a free-for-all under the Transport Bill.
What kind of transport will remain in rural Wales? Will the valleys in which I grew up remain as I know them? Will the valleys in the old counties of Cardigan and Carmarthen and the west of mid-Wales remain as other families know them? Will there be more or less transport in those areas? The Minister should be honest and tell the House that, whatever innovation there is, whatever piece of plaster is put on the wound, there will be greater deprivation in rural Wales. That is a great tragedy of the Transport Bill.
There has always been cross-subsidisation in rural Wales. It is written into the electricity legislation. If cross-subsidisation were not applied to the Post Office, letters to rural Wales would be charged at five times the price of those to urban London. If that is the Government's free market philosophy, it could mean that life in mid-Wales and rural Wales would not be a life worth living for anyone except the extremely affluent who had the resources to look after their own affairs. The poor will be driven out and these areas will become reservations in which the rich may enjoy themselves. They will be playgrounds for people from the urban communities and those who have the necessary affluence to afford basic services.
I commend the work of various chairmen and members of the Wales tourist board. How do the resources of the Wales tourist board compare with those of the English tourist board and the Scottish tourist board? Do we receive our fair share of the money available for tourism? I hope that the Minister can put me out of my misery and tell me that we in Wales receive more than our fair share for tourism. I hope that the hon. Gentleman fights a fair fight, and I would be happy if he were to tell me that that was so. I would, however, be surprised to hear it.
Could not a little more be done with respect to innovation? On Saturday, I heard the suggestion that the Wales tourist board could do more for fishing, which is an enormous attraction in the Principality. I declare an interest as an occasional angler. I know that there are some problems and that we cannot fish the number of fish that were available in the past. During the past few years, the catch has not been all that good. There have been suggestions that a small area could be set aside for a man-made lake providing employment and offering fishing facilities. If we had the resources of the Wales tourist board, the Development Board for Rural Wales and the Welsh Development Agency, encouragement from the Welsh Office and funds from Brussels, we might be able to do more.
The Government have nothing to their credit with respect to innovations in machinery to deal with the problems of Wales. The Labour Government set up the Welsh Development Agency and the Development Board for Rural Wales. But for those prime weapons, this Government would have no machinery to deal with the problems of Wales.

Sir Raymond Gower: What about investment?

Mr. Morris: The hon. Gentleman may make his speech in his own time. The machinery which I have described and the economic activities which are not encouraged were decried by the present Secretary of State for Wales when the measure were put before the House.

Mr. Donald Coleman: Surely my right hon. and learned Friend is not surprised at this, in view of the fact that a number of Conservative Members voted in the Welsh Grand Committee against setting up those institutions.

Mr. Morris: My hon. Friend was the Whip on those occasions. Conservative Members opposed the setting up of the WDA when we tried to get the matter speedily passed through the House. The Wales TUC carried a resolution deploring the activities on the Floor of the House. The present Secretary of State for Wales initially opposed the formation of the Development Board for Rural Wales, but realised that that was a mistake and eventually went along with the idea. No new machinery has been developed since then. Without the weapons of the Welsh Development Agency and the Development Board for Rural Wales, the Government's cupboard would be bare.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friends who were in the Labour Cabinet for accepting my views on the need for WDA. They gave me every support in setting up that body and giving it the necessary resources. I felt, however, that mid-Wales needed more. Thirty-two years ago last Saturday, when I was 21,I came down from university and was asked at a young farmers' rally whether I would like to be the parliamentary Labour candidate for the county of Cardigan. I went to the selection panel, having been asked by a distinguished "Cardi" to accept the candidacy. I had to do my military service, so the constituency rightly rejected me. I made my speech at that meeting on the basis of a famous report by a distinguished Welshman, H. T. Edwards, who was chairman of the Council of Wales. He said that a statutory board was required to deal with the problems of mid-Wales. It was my great privilege more than 20 years later to put that into effect and to carry out the promise I made at that conference.
Not many people wanted that board. The provision was not in any party policy. The Welsh Office and the present Secretary of State did not want it. I discovered, after three awful months, that the man in the Welsh Office who was supposed to be organising the matter, had been taken off the job. If I had not realised that and had not taken immediate steps to correct the position, the legislation would not have been ready in time. That was one of the few occasions on which I blew my top in the Welsh Office. I had Eric Varley's support. He recognised the needs. All the difficulties in the Department of Trade and Industry were overridden, and the body was established.
The Welsh Development Agency was necessary because I believed that it could tackle the major problems of Wales. Something more than a broad-brush approach was needed in mid-Wales. We needed the fine touch of the paint brush. We needed a few thousand pounds here and there to prime the pump in the rural community. We were afraid that depopulation would occur in rural Wales to such an extent that we could not put the clock back. If the population comprised only the elderly, with no one able


to earn his livelihood, the cost of providing social services would be so enormous that it would mean the end of the road for mid-Wales.
I very much welcome the arresting of the depopulation trend in some parts of Wales. We must, however, analyse the age of the population and ascertain the extent to which the arrest has been caused by people retiring to rural Wales rather than by the retention of people in that area. Only a tiny minority of the people who were in the same form as I was in Aberyswyth are still earning their livelihood in the old county of Cardigan. We have continued to lose our life blood. Major steps were taken with the Development Board for Rural Wales. I was convinced that only a statutory board could solve the problems. The development of Newtown is a shining example of the improvements. The DBRW needs more resources. If it had those resources, it could provide those pockets of industry that would enable the quality of life to be changed in many parts of the community.
Lack of resources is the problem in mid-Wales. I believe passionately that, such is the quality of life in that area, with a little help—I am not talking about a lot of money—something could be done to achieve a better balance of population. I fear that rural Wales will have an aging population, and not a broad-based population able to hold its own and provide sufficient employment for the best of its young people. For far too many years, we have educated for export. That is why we have lost so many of the best of our young people. Until I am convinced that we have done more than merely arrest the depopulation trend, and have provided job opportunities to retain more young people, I shall not be confident about rural Wales.
I hope that 1 have underlined the point that, even if the Minister of State is not concerned about the problems of rural Wales, many of us are. It is not the time for complacency. Years of work must be done to ensure that the clock is put back and that there is a thriving community. It will take years for agriculture to recover from the damaging blows during the past few years. It will be years before people have the necessary confidence to invest in it in Wales. We must ensure that, whatever the crisis—perhaps because of problems of over-production in other industries—funds are available. Vitality, funds, drive, imagination and investment are needed for Wales to cope with the problems that may occur during the next few years.

Sir Raymond Gower: Without detracting from what the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) did for mid-Wales, I am sure that he would agree that he was greatly assisted by the self-help groups which had set up an organisation there before Mid-Wales Development was created and which had done extremely valuable work.

Mr. John Morris: I certainly accept that. I built the Development Board for Rural Wales on that basis, and incorporated on the initial board some of the distinguished people who had served on those bodies.

Sir Raymond Gower: To that extent, I subscribe to what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, but the foundations had been laid by the self-help initiatives of the county councils.
The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) misled the House when he asked for a White Paper. He spoke as

though we were not in Europe, and almost gave the impression that we need not conduct difficult international negotiations before deciding on many of those changes.

Mr. John: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman knows whether we are in Europe. I am not clear whether he lives in the modern world. If I am misleading the House —that is a fairly serious charge to make—I am doing it in common with the NFU in Wales and the Financial Times last week. If the hon. Gentleman would read about farming, he might learn a little more.

Sir Raymond Gower: That is a facile remark which does not take us much further. The tenor of the hon. Gentleman's speech was that we could produce a White Paper now just as easily as we could have done before we joined the Community. That has the result of misleading the House.
The right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon seems to want the Minister to be a soothsayer who can anticipate the eating habits a few years hence. It is inconceivable that we can work along those lines. He and the hon. Member for Pontypridd must know that any Minister with responsibility for agriculture is in a difficult position and must, in some respects, follow rather than lead events. It is not easy for Ministers to say what will happen next year or the year after, and I hope that hon. Members will be fair enough to accept that.
Despite the undoubted problems of the predominantly milk-producing areas, agriculture still makes a formidable contribution to the economy of the Principality. However, there will be difficulties ahead, and the hon. Member for Pontypridd was correct to say that we must expect problems in other sectors of agriculture. It is conceivable that there will be over-production in other sectors. In a Community it is difficult to anticipate future needs and to produce exactly the right amount. These are highly technical matters, and I would not condemn a Government of any party for having difficulties in this area.
Welsh farmers will have problems, but there is still a splendid future for agriculture in Wales, even taking into account the manifest difficulties owing to geographical conditions, to the fact that many of our areas have suffered for a long time from inaccessibility, and to the fact that we do not have a large proportion of the higher-grade land that can be found in some parts of the United Kingdom. In the past, many of our farmers were too small to be economic, but these has been some improvement in that respect. Much of our land is in the upland and hill-farming areas, which have benefited from the special provision that has been made by the Community for less-favoured areas.
It is noteworthy that, after about a century and a half of serious depopulation in parts of mid-Wales — especially in the old county of Montgomery, which suffered constant depopulation for well over a century— there is evidence that the worst of that has been stopped.
I echo the tributes that have been paid to Mid-Wales Development, the Welsh Development Agency and the Wales tourist board for their efforts in rural mid-Wales.
Despite the economic recession, successive Ministers in successive Governments deserve congratulations on maintaining the broad impetus of the road building programme. The extension of the M4 motorway to the west has produced great benefits to the farming areas of Dyfed, Carmarthen, Pembrokeshire and Cardigan. Similarly, north-west Wales must have benefited from the


steady improvement in communications. I take the point of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) that the road system in mid-Wales must be improved. However, when I have driven through Powys, I have been greatly impressed by the quality of many main roads. The county council must be congratulated on them. It is an amazing achievement that so many roads have improved, and it is certainly much more pleasant and easier to drive through Builth and Llandridnod to Newtown than it was a decade ago.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Has the hon. Gentleman recently tried to drive from Powys via Wrexham to Merseyside or the Manchester area? If so, will he confirm that it is a journey which few would undertake, unless they had strong reasons for doing so, because of the appalling roads along that route?

Sir Raymond Gower: I admit that I have not done that during the past few years, but when I wished to travel that way, I usually drove to Shrewsbury and then north.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Through England.

Sir Raymond Gower: That is so. I repeat that I have been impressed by the condition of the roads in large areas of Powys.
The right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon and the hon. Member for Pontypridd expressed their legitimate doubts about the new plans for the bus industry. However effective or ineffective they may be in other parts of Wales, it seems likely that the flexibility of the new system is almost designed to effect some improvement in rural areas. In recent years, in some parts of mid-Wales and Powys, adequate transport has been almost non-existent. Some villages have had no real bus services for a long time. The new arrangements cannot be worse than the present position, and the chances are that they will lead to an improvement. Hon. Members are on the wrong tack when they relate the future of the bus industry to the subject of today's debate, because, in this narrow area, there is a great prospect of considerable improvement.
In addition to some of the matters mentioned by the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris), rural Wales, especially mid-Wales, needs continued road improvements. I would set that above many of the other things that have been referred to. The inaccessibility of so much of mid-Wales must be cured.
Parts of mid-Wales would benefit from the adoption of the methods and practice of Mid-Wales Development to adjacent areas in north-west Wales, northern Dyfed and Carmarthen. I echo the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon in that I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to give us some information about the degree of real help given by the Exchequer to the Wales tourist board. Is it having a fair deal as compared with the tourist boards in England and Scotland?
In addition, I should like continued provision of the smaller purpose-built advance factories in suitable parts of rural Wales where there is an adequate population for them. Finally, additional steps should be taken to assist the increasing number of craft industries, which are a valuable adjunct to our tourist industry. In the past, our craft industries have been poorer than those overseas. Although

there has been a radical improvement in this industry in the past few years, some extra assistance here could be fruitful.
Although I am not as pessimistic as some hon. Members who have spoken, I recognise that the problems of rural Wales are considerable. Despite the world recession and our economic difficulties, matters are not nearly as bad as the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggested.

Mr. Geraint Howells: Although I am pleased that we have been given an opportunity to debate Welsh affairs once again, it is rather disappointing that the Labour party should have asked for only half a day in which to debate such a crucial aspect of our national life.
It is a significant, not to say cynical, gesture on the part of a movement that largely ignored the rural population when in power, to decide to debate the matter at all now. The Labour party is, broadly speaking, out of sympathy with a large sector of the rural community on whose vitality and resource the economy of these areas depends —the farming community.
The Labour party has campaigned vigorously to get us out of Europe, yet, despite the several and serious shortcomings of the common agricultural policy, agriculture in Wales would be in a much worse state if we withdrew. It is interesting to note that, when a Tory Member tried to bring in a Bill to rate agricultural buildings a couple of weeks ago, the most solid support for it came from the Labour Benches. In my view, such a policy would harm Welsh fanners more than most because livestock farming which uses buildings, is important to them.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Edwards): I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would explain why, if that is so, the Liberal-Social Democratic policy document on local government states:
There is only one exclusion from the rating system which can no longer be justified: the derating of agricultural land and buildings. The re-rating of agriculture would strengthen the rate base of many local authorities with low resources.
Is that the policy of the alliance or is the alliance split on this as on everything else?

Mr. Howells: With respect, I was talking about the Bill which was defeated in the House only a fortnight ago. Tory and Labour Governments have been given opportunities to help farmers in hill and marginal areas, but they have been remarkably reluctant to take them. It is one thing to say today that more acres in Wales have been taken under the marginal land scheme, but the farmers of Wales know—I do not think that they will forgive Tory or Labour Governments for this—that they did not receive the full hill compensatory allowance. That was a retrograde step. Farmers should not have been penalised when the Europeans were willing to provide the money.
It is good that we have a chance to highlight the serious problems facing rural communities, despite the limited time given to the subject, because the problems have been exacerbated by mindless and insensitive Tory policies. During the past six years, Wales has been treated shamefully by the Tories and, in many respects, rural Wales has suffered as much as industrial areas.
One example of insensitivity and incompetence in policy making is the Government's dealing with the milk quota system. It is important not to underestimate the effects of the milk quota on rural Wales. Although there are now only about one quarter as many milk producers as there were 30 years ago, we now produce twice as much milk. The economy of certain areas in highly dependent on milk production. The milk quota system has hit those areas hard and farmers have suffered severe financial losses.
It is generally agreed that the tribunals set up to deal, with hardship cases have not succeeded in helping all those who need and deserve help. There are serious anomalies, and steps must be taken to amend the system so that producers receive justice. It would be helpful if the Secretary of State could tell us of any plans he may have in this direction. It is unbelievable that Ministers should say that it is all right to introduce a quota system for small dairy producers in Britain when they have no plans to introduce a quota system for cereal growers, but that is what the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said a fortnight ago.
The Government have ignored the importance of agriculture in Wales. They do not recognise the problems and have failed to give any indication of policies for the future that would help to give the industry stability. Instead, they have concentrated on cutting money for research services and have curtailed the activities of the agricultural development and advisory service. Welsh farming has special problems and is bound to suffer as a result of those cuts.
One of the Government's worst-thought-out measures this Session-—and there have been many—is to be found in the Transport Bill, which is going through Parliament on the payroll vote. The privatisation of the bus networks would do untold damage in Wales. We might have efficient services connecting sparsely populated areas with villages and towns, but they would be destroyed if the Bill in enacted. So-called uneconomic routes would be ignored in the fight for lucrative long-distance or town routes and those least able to afford their own transport — the young, the unemployed seeking work, the elderly wishing to visit a doctor, a post office or shops—would be left stranded.
There is a constant attack on rural schools. With the recent Tory trend of insisting on value for money in education, more rural schools will come under threat. As these schools are closed, so the communities they serve will decline. How can one place a value on education or on community ties? Why deprive our children of a first-class amenity in the name of prudent money saving? The alliance believes that any school with two teachers or more should be kept open and that special consideration should be given to social and community aspects before deciding to close even the smallest school.
The Government's mania for so-called efficiency and cost cutting is also threatening our rural post offices and telephone kiosks. We hear daily of small sub-post offices çlosing in villages where there is an aging population. This forces the inhabitants to travel miles to collect their pensions and allowances. No efforts are made to find new tenants for vacant sub-post offices. In all their calculations, the Government have left out the social consequences of their scrimping and saving and they have succeeded in making the quality of life for rural dwellers much poorer.
I am also concerned about the effect on large parts of rural Wales of cuts in the National Health Service. Many patients already travel long distances for hospital care and treatment and now more local and cottage hospitals are to close. If we are to help the rural communities, it is essential that we take an enlightened view and that we spend more money on amenities and services. We must begin by restoring and improving the infrastructure, by building and maintaining better roads and encouraging the development of our rail services. This in turn could help to encourage more light industry and to provide stable and rewarding jobs for the people of the area. I am glad that the Mid-Wales development board is doing an excellent job, within the limits laid down for it. I should like to see its scope extended and its work better funded. It is essential to extend a lifeline to small business in rural areas. During the years of Tory rule, thousands of them have gone to the wall. The small business and self-employed sector is of vital importance to the economic well-being of rural Wales. Small businesses have been shabbily treated by this Government. They must be encouraged to grow and thus take on more employees.
Tourism is now an important fact of life in many rural areas. It could save the economy of many areas from foundering. The Wales tourist board has accepted the challenge. The Government should recognise that by giving special additional grants, bearing in mind the needs of Wales.
We must revitalise rural Wales. We must give it more hope by creating real jobs and by providing essential services. The Tory Government have completely failed. It is no wonder that the Welsh people rejected them so resoundingly during the recent county council elections.
The suggestion has been made today that the Government should introduce a White Paper on the future of agriculture in Wales. To restore confidence among the agricultural community in Wales we need a ten-year plan for the industry so that farmers in all sectors can plan ahead. To help young men entering agriculture, we should set up a land bank to give them special facilities, like their counterparts in Europe.
Our smallholdings system has worked well in many parts of Wales. I am proud of Dyfed county council and other counties which have not sold their smallholdings. To save the infrastructure of agriculture the Government must give extra financial aid to county councils to ensure that they provide more smallholdings for those who want to start in agriculture.
The Minister said that everything was rosy in Wales and that grants were forthcoming. Even in Powys, Brecon and Radnor fanners are aware of the cuts in grant that have been made in the last twelve months. The Government promise more cuts in the years to come. Welsh farmers should have the opportunity to use a capital grant scheme, which has worked exceptionally well in the past decade or two, or they should be able to obtain cheap credit. Farmers would have the choice if the scheme became optional. Such a system works well on the continent and our counterparts in Europe are willing for our Government to introduce such a scheme, which would be beneficial to everyone in Wales.
Now that the Secretary of State has full responsibility for Welsh agriculture he should go to Brussels to represent Welsh agriculture during negotiations on the price review. If I am wrong I am willing to be corrected, but to my


knowledge, he has been only once, when he negotiated the sheepmeat regime for 1979–80. It is his duty to go to Brussels on behalf of the people involved in agriculture.
There is another problem in the east Dyfed health authority area. Many beds are to go at Llanelli, Carmarthen and Aberystwyth. I hope that the Secretary of State can do something to avoid hospitals having to cut spending in the next twelve months.
The Government have said that they plan cuts worth £30 million in research establishment expenditure. Many of us are afraid that untold damage will be done to the Welsh plant breeding station at Aberystwyth. It would be a great shame because it is the only national institution of its kind in Wales. We do not think that it will be closed, but it needs to be restored so that it can continue to provide work for the people in the area. It should be available to help those who want to develop different types of grasses in the Third world.
I have received many letters lately from people who are worried about policing in the rural areas. It is a pity that crime is on the increase. Many people in the rural areas would like a different method of policing to be used. Methods are the responsibility of the chief constables, but some people believe in a more flexible policy. The police should travel in cars round the rural areas, but there is much to be said for the village bobby. In my view we need both.
Those of us who live in the rural areas are proud of our culture, heritage and language. Many of us have pressed —I have pressed in particular—that we should have a board to look after the interests of the Welsh language and its development in the years to come. It should be preserved. It is our duty to do so. I hope that the Government in their wisdom will accept the plea that has been made by many Welsh-speaking Welshmen throughout the Principality, that we should safeguard our culture and our language.

Dr. Roger Thomas: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that the Welsh Joint Education Council recently came out flatly against such a board for securing the future and even distribution of facilities for the Welsh language? I believe that it is a disappointing state of affairs and I think that the hon. Gentleman will be disappointed, too.

Mr. Howells: I accept what the hon. Gentleman has said. I expected the council to say just what it did, but I believe that we need a board to look after the interests of the Welsh language.

Sir Anthony Meyer: I am sorry that the Labour party should choose to introduce this interesting debate in the terms that it used. I am sure that at the conclusion of the debate Labour Members will be sorry about that. However, I found myself reluctantly nodding in agreement with a great deal of what the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) said about an enhanced role for the Welsh development agency. Whoever else will be glad of the debate, I am sure that the Liberal party will not wish to study too closely the report of today's proceedings, particularly the demolition of its agricultural policy by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
The story of rural Wales is in fact a success story, though Heaven knows there is plenty of room for improvement. Those of us on the Select Committee who visited mid-Wales recently during our inquiry into tourism are still in the process of making up our minds about the overall performance of the Wales tourist board, but for the work of Mid-Wales Development—or the Development Board for Rural Wales, as we used to call it—we all have nothing but praise. Of course the withdrawal of assisted area status, necessitated by the overdue rationalisation of regional policy, was a blow to its efforts, but by energy and adaptability, it has done much to overcome that, and in particular to find ways of continuing to draw support from the EEC. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will continue his efforts to make such aid available, and to extend it to those areas of rural Wales that are no longer formally designated as assisted areas.
There are limits to the expansion of industrial activity in rural Wales, though the Laura Ashley saga, which reflects the greatest possible credit on all concerned, suggests that there is still considerable scope for expansion in the right sort of manufacturing industry. But, of course, the industry where expansion is most clearly called for is tourism. It would be out of order as well as premature to discuss tourism at any length today, but we would do well to keep it at the back of our minds, for tourism, which can provide so many jobs and create so much prosperity, cannot itself flourish unless the environment and the infrastructure are adequate to nourish it. Here there is a virtuous circle that needs to be initiated.
No doubt the debate will be used to attack the Government's Transport Bill. There is an element of risk in the Bill, for unless the entrepreneurs come forward to provide the local transport services that can now be made profitable by the removal of restrictions, we shall have wrecked a poor transport system and left ourselves with nothing. I do not for one moment believe that that will happen. I am sure that there is enough wit and will in Wales to provide flexible transport services, not merely to meet the present known needs, but to create new travel opportunities for the countryside, and in the process to make that countryside more attractive to tourists.
The railways of Wales are among the major tourist attractions as well as the vital artery in the economy as a whole. The most stupid rumours are being circulated by those who ought to know better, such as the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). I am sorry to say that normally sensible local papers have been picking up those rumours and giving them currency. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has demonstrated in the most tangible fashion his support for railway lines in Wales. It should not be necessary, but I have to ask him yet again to make it perfectly plain in his winding-up speech that there is no question of closing the north Wales line or any of the other major lines in Wales.

Mr. Best: My hon. Friend will not be aware that yesterday I spoke to Mr. Harewood, the area manager based at Chester, who found it quite extraordinary that statements were being made about possible closure of the north Wales line. A large amount of investment is going into upgrading that line so that it can take trains that travel at 90 mph.

Sir Anthony Meyer: That shows how foolish it is to listen to anything said by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich.
There are other areas where misgivings may be more justified, and if my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State can give any reassurance, it would be much appreciated. The first concern is smaller schools. It is hopelessly uneconomic and educationally unsatisfactory to try to keep every school open as the numbers dwindle with falling school rolls. The school is the heart of a community and the closure of a school can be a terrible blow to the spirit of that community. There are already rumours that large and successful comprehensive schools may be closed if their numbers fall below 1,000. In that climate, there is a natural anxiety that the criteria for the closure of schools in rural areas may be continuously raised until few of them qualify for survival. I ask my right hon. Friend in his winding-up speech to give me some assurance that his Department will not merely take into account— and encourage local education authorties to take into account — the cost of running the schools or even their educational efficiency, but will give some weight to the place of those schools in the life of the communities that they serve.
The other matter that worries me, which has been referred to by the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) relates to sub-post offices. Some of the same considerations apply here as apply to schools. The Post Office Corporation in its entirely laudable pursuit of profitability, is now closing down a number of post offices, so far mainly in urban areas, on the grounds that they are unprofitable. I believe that that is a faulty calculation based on the concept of reducing activity until the point of profitability is reached instead of expanding until one reaches the other end of the profit curve. The closure of sub-post offices in urban areas inflicts inconvenience and occasional hardship on individuals. If such a policy of closure were extended to the countryside—I accept the assurance that so far there is no intention to do so—the consequences would be a good deal more serious. A village without a post office or a school is a poor thing, and an inexorably decaying thing.
By far the most important activity in rural Wales is agriculture. Agriculture in Wales, especially milk producing, has passed through a worrying period. The worst has not happened largely because of the dismal expectations aroused by the announcement of milk quotas. There are other worries ahead and for other sectors of agriculture. Welsh farming has done well in past years out of the common agricultural policy, and much of it is still doing well. It is within a common agricultural policy for Europe that the best future for Welsh agriculture lies. However, the immense and insuperable difficulty of getting decisions out of the Common Market makes it impossible for Ministers to operate the changes that would enable agriculture in Wales to make a far greater and better directed contribution to the well-being of the countryside by, for example, concentrating subsidies much more on the less favoured areas, and by reducing the excessive prices paid for crops or production already in surplus. However, it is not for those who stoutly defend the right of each member state to veto a decision which it may find mildly inconvenient, to complain that the EC has been reduced to paralysis and that the common agricultural policy is not contributing as it should to the well-being of the countryside. I have never concealed my view. If we

want the EC to work—there is no point in being in it, if we do not—we must accept far more limitations on our right of veto than any Minister seems ready to contemplate. If the Liberal party takes that as a sign of approval for some of its policies, it is the only sign of approval that it will get from me today.
One thing is certain: rural Wales gets a better deal from a Conservative Government than it would from a Labour Government, who would knock the props from agriculture and lay heavy burdens on it, or from an alliance Government, who, we learn, would impose other such burdens on agriculture, and who have yet to show that they can sustain the long-term policies necessary to revitalise the countryside, or from Plaid Cymru, whose policies would cut Wales off from the desperately needed flow of outward investment. I have no hesitation in supporting the Government amendment.

Dr. Donald Coleman: Both the Minister and the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Sir R. Gower) referred to the halt in the depopulation of mid-Wales. It is to be welcomed, and they welcomed it, as I do. When I first came to the House we established the Welsh Office. Our first Secretary of State for Wales, James Griffiths, made it his work to ensure that the depopulation of Mid-Wales should and must be halted. He was undoubtedly given the most expert advice on the matter from no less a person than the late Tudor Watkins, who represented Brecon and Radnor for a long time, and knew the problems of mid-Wales and its counties well.
Our motion condemns the Government's complacency. We listened to the Minister of State, whom the Opposition regard as both likeable and affable, introducing the subject, but, despite our kind feelings and thoughts towards him, I must agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris), who accused him of complacency. I found nothing to convince me that the Government were as serious as they should be about the problems of rural Wales.
The motion goes on to talk about the need for a change in Government policies towards rural communities in Wales. Almost a year ago I listened intently, as I always do, during a debate in the Welsh Grand Committee about rural affairs in Wales. Many hon. Members drew the attention of the Secretary of State for Wales to the problems that were created by last summer's drought, especially its serious effect on the rural communities in Wales. I re-read the report of that debate, and it does not seem that members of the Committee were satisfied with the answers that they received from the right hon. Gentleman. Each of us hopes that we shall have the benefit of fine weather again this year, but we do not want a repeat of the experience that was complained of in the Welsh Grand Committee last year.
When the Minister replies to the debate, it is not too much to expect from him an assurance that the problems caused by the drought last year will not take place this year if we are fortunate enough to have a long dry spell this summer. We want to hear from him that the Welsh water authority has made funds available to implement the work known to be needed to avoid the problems of drought, especially in rural areas.
The rural areas are places of exceptional beauty, and living in them should be nothing short of idyllic. Unfortunately, the Government and their policies are as


much a blight on those rural areas as on urban areas. Many of the problems are the same, but many are intensified in their effect in rural areas. The Transport Bill, which is now in another place, is an example of that. Indeed, hon. Members have already alluded to it today.
People in rural areas cannot be confident that under the new legislation the existing network of bus services in rural areas will survive. When the process of privatisation gets under way and the National Bus Company disappears from our roads, there can be no certainty that a benevolent privateer will jump in to provide the bus services, poor as they may be in rural areas. The poor and the elderly will be returned to the Prime Minister's much-loved Victorian times when the boundaries of their world were the distance that they could walk.
Supporters of the Government have expressed their conviction that privatisation of bus services will provide a better and cheaper service in rural areas. They are certainly easy to convince, but perhaps it is because their experience of these matters is limited. From my experience of the valleys of my constituency, many of which are semi-rural, I do not see the chances of rural areas as being bright. If there is not a publicly owned operation which is required by statute to provide services, and if one thinks that a privateer will do so, one is whistling in the dark. Because of the Government's transport policy, rural communities will find themselves having to pay fewer bus fares, but greater shoe repair bills.
I shall touch briefly on another matter of Government policy which will cause serious trouble in rural areas, if it is implemented. In his recent Budget statement, the Chancellor of the Exchequer foreshadowed the dismantling of the wages councils. On Sunday new minimum wage rates for farm workers came into effect. The workers should ponder whether this will be the last time that they will have such an award, and whether the future will return them to the bad old times that they experienced in the past. They should concenţrate their minds on that.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) talked about the culture of Wales. Within the upper regions of the Swansea valley the Craig-y-Nos hospital is about to close. It was the home of Adelina Patti. Proposals have been made which would ensure that that building, in a beautiful rural setting, could be used for the advancement of culture, and to promote the study of the area. Some parts of the building could be used for the establishment of rural industries. But we are being told by the Government and by the Welsh Office that the building must appear in the auctioneer's catalogue and be sold to the highest bidder. Yet it is part of our cultural heritage in Wales, and we have the right to expect a different attitude to be taken to it. Therefore, I urge the Secretary of State to look carefully at the proposals and to preserve that part of our national heritage.
A year ago there were complaints that the decline in rural Wales was continuing. There were indications of it in the reduction in the number of agricultural workers and in the reduction in educational opportunities in the rural areas. Churches and chapels and even public houses were closing. There has been nothing from the Government in the debate today to indicate to us or to the Welsh people and those who live in the Welsh rural communities that the decline has either halted or decreased. We have been made

aware, as I have tried to demonstrate, and as other hon. Members have, that Government policies are under consideration which will make the situation even worse.
I hope that people in the rural areas of Wales will take note of the debate and will recognise that they are part of the Government's policy of neglect which has left Britain a very much worse off place than it was when the Government came on the scene in 1979. The only remedy for that neglect will be to get rid of the Government as soon as is possible.

Mr. Robert Harvey: I shall be very brief, because this seems to me to be a most curious debate. A deep concern for the countryside has not been evident in Labour party pronouncements in the past. Farming is still a major producer of wealth in rural Wales. Even though only 4 per cent. of the Clwyd labour force is directly employed in it, the prosperity and jobs that it generates go much wider.
What is Labour party policy on agriculture? The indignation that emanated from the Labour benches when milk quotas were imposed — to cheers from the Strangers' Gallery from Dyfed farmers—would lead one to assume that the Opposition were determined to maintain food surpluses, would keep in being the old dairy arrangements, and would go on allowing producers to expand as if there were no tomorrow. Yet what would the Labour party do? The answer that we heard from the Labour Front Bench today was not altogether clear.
At a Financial Times conference last year, the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) said bluntly:
We can reduce the number of products which are covered by guarantee, and we can cut the guarantee to an economically justifiable level. More important, we can begin an assault on surplus capacity, reducing rather than increasing the amount of uneconomic production.
That at least has the virtue of honesty. The position taken by Conservative Members is that, in view of the economic contribution that farming makes to the rural communities, the cuts should be as small and as gradual as possible, although in my view the cuts imposed last year went too far. But the Labour position is that "an assault" should be made on fanning incomes, on the very lifeblood of our rural communities. I wonder what is now the attitude of the Labour party to the repeated resolutions for the nationalisation of the land passed at Labour party conferences. Is nationalisation of the land official Labour party policy or is it not? The rural communities of Wales deserve an answer.
I am glad to see that even Labour Members have welcomed the retention of the beef variable premium, and recognise the staggering victory that was achieved by the Government in the recent settlement on land when a concerted EEC attack on the price was beaten off. That will be a major reassurance to the hill farmers of rural Wales.
The other lifeline of our rural communities is tourism. Tourism in our Principality is growing apace, thanks to Government action in encouraging the small business sector, in raising the threshold at which small businesses pay tax, and in easing the employment protection legislation that prevents them from growing.
Much has been said about bus services in the debate. The fact remains that bus services have been declining steadily under the existing system, which has encouraged


high fares, high subsidies and fewer services. The hope —I recognise that it is only a hope—arising from the Transport Bill must be that a more competitive bus system can halt the decline in the vital services to the neediest people in our rural communities.
It is hard to fault the Government's record on roads. The A470, A465, A40, A47, A438, A48, A487 and A55 have all helped to open up rural Wales. The straightening and widening of roads in rural areas such as Powys has indeed gone beyond the point at which it might be environmentally desirable.
With regard to railways, the £176,000 recently pledged for the improvement of the mid-Wales and Cambrian lines must be taken as a vote of confidence in the future of those services, which so admirably serve rural areas. However, any attempt by British Rail to single-track the Chester to Shrewsbury line would be a hammer blow to the urban and rural communities along that line, which serves a great deal of Wales, and I urge the Secretary of State to do everything in his power to influence British Rail on the matter.
Our record in helping rural communities is admirable, and I hope that it will lead to—

Mr. Alex Carlile: The hon. Gentleman says that the Government's record in helping rural areas is admirable.
Through his rose-coloured glasses, will he tell us the admirable reasons which have led to Powys being the only county in Wales which is no longer eligible for assistance from the European social fund?

Mr. Harvey: I have outlined in great detail the areas in which the Government's record is extremely favourable. I have some doubts about the way in which regional support was changed, and I have expressed those doubts in the Welsh Grand Committee. Nevertheless, the overall position has been one of considerable success in regenerating the rural communities of Wales.
I urge the Secretary of State to look at one other area in which he might contribute to helping the rural communities in Wales. I refer to the funding of small craft workshop projects of the kind being pursued by Clwydfro in Clwyd as a cheaper and more direct way of stimulating local employment, in keeping with the character of rural areas, than advance factories necessarily are.
With regard to the Opposition's motive in calling the debate, I was puzzled to find in a recent policy document on Wales put out by the Labour party no mention of rural Wales—not a word. The rural communities of Wales have shown in the past two decades how much the Labour party cares for them by converting themselves into Conservative seats. I would not for a moment suggest that the Labour party, in calling the debate, was motivated by anything as dishonourable as the prospect of an approaching by-election in a seat with a large rural hinterland, but the party should look at the rather curious outlook of some of its political advisers. Some of these advisers are very strange indeed and very anti-agricultural. I understand that the research department of the Labour party has just produced a children's book on trade unionism which tells the story of farm animals—

Mr. John: I would not expect the hon. Gentleman to know a great deal about politics; he has had enough difficulty in keeping to his Central Office brief. The Labour research department is not a vehicle or a department of the Labour party.

Mr. Harvey: I am glad to have that reassurance. I was a little surprised to see that this document had been published by the research department, and I am glad to have it on record that it reflects in no way the sentiments of the Labour party. This children's book on trade unionism tells the story of farm animals going on strike to protest at dangerous, rusty machinery that they work with and the rotten food that they get from Mr. Moneybags, the farmer, in return for working a 12-hour day. I might enlighten the Opposition by saying that no farmer would become Mr. Moneybags if he did not use modern machinery and high yield feeding stuffs and if he did not work a 16-hour day.
The value of this debate is that it reveals the extent of the Labour party's knowledge of and attitude towards farming and rural Wales and those who work there.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: I was disappointed by one point in the Minister of State's otherwise excellent opening speech. The propaganda machine at the Welsh Office has for once neglected to make any announcement about "goodies". No doubt we shall have to wait for the winding-up speech of the Secretary of State for Wales before those "goodies" are announced.
The Minister of State asked for a positive approach to be adopted. I shall try to make a positive suggestion: it is about time that the Welsh Office became a serious Department of policy making. We are referring to rural communities in Wales. I should prefer to describe it as the countryside of Wales or, in the predominant language of that countryside, as cefn gwlad. The countryside of Wales is the responsibility of the Welsh Office in terms of policy. It is a territorial Department of State. The Welsh Office is the department for agriculture in Wales, for the environment and for the national parks, housing, social services, planning, overall economic oversight, trans-portation, tourism, education and training. The Development Board for Rural Wales is also answerable to the Welsh Office. Many more aspects of territorial policy are dealt with by the Welsh Office.
After a long and detailed study of all the circulars that have been produced by the Welsh Office, and after comparing them line by line and clause by clause with similar circulars produced by other Departments in London, there seems to be very little difference between them, apart from certain policy aspects relating to the Welsh language. The Welsh Office does not appear to have a distinctive policy-making function, yet it ought to have a positive strategy for dealing with the future of rural communities in Wales. The failure of the Welsh Office over adopting such a strategy has already been mentioned by the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells), who said that the Welsh Office ought to be the agricultural department for Wales and should represent Wales directly in the European Community. The Welsh Office did not demand, as it should have done, an additional quota for Wales which would have prevented last year's milk industry crisis from which so many farmers are still suffering. I represent a sheepmeat area, and I welcome the achievements on sheepmeat, but it is essential to put on record the failure of the Welsh Office to represent Welsh interests directly in the European Community
.


The Welsh Office ought to be able to make a departmental response to last year's report by the Countryside Commission relating to a better future for the uplands. In 1984 I had the opportunity to speak at the national parks conference in Llandudno. I referred in some detail to the report and its recommendations. Can the Secretary of State say what is happening inside the Whitehall machinery and Cathays Park about the report of the Countryside Commission? Is it being shelved? Is action being taken? Are the positive recommendations contained in the report being taken on board by the Government? Do the Government intend to respond fully to the report? In what way do they intend to respond to it?
The report is a serious attempt by the Countryside Commission to deal with the needs of the upland areas. The Countryside Commission's report recommends additional public investment in country areas in order to sustain upland communities, improve their quality of life, provide adequate levels of income and good employment opportunities. It also recommends the examination of ways in which economic development can be sustained. Another recommendation is that there should be an examination of ways in which capital can be invested in manufacturing and service industries, using European Community sources, where possible.
The report also considered the strengthening of the socio-economic advice of the agricultural department of the Welsh Office. It looked in particular at the need for additional housing investment in rural areas — at the need for the provision of low cost but well-designed accommodation in both the public and the private sectors to meet the needs of people living in upland areas. It also considered the need for the housing investment programmes of district councils with large rural areas to have increased allocations. That applies also to the allocations to housing associations. A series of recommendations in the report point to the need for additional public investment in rural areas. I should like to hear the full response of the Government to the most important study of the countryside that has been produced in recent years.
We have seen not the strengthening of the fabric of the countryside but its weakening by a process not only of centralisation which operates through market forces, with commercial enterprises usually situated in larger towns within rural areas, but of centralisation in the public sector — telecommunications, buses, gas and water. All of these utilities are now threatened by privatisation, or they have already been privatised by the Government. The result is centralisation. The Welsh water authority recently objected to the privatisation of its services. If that were to take place, there would no doubt be further centralisation of the water authority's services.
Local government has also been centralised, and the health districts operate in a centralised way. I have discussed recently with people in Gwynedd the health authority's proposal to remove ambulance cover from large parts of rural north-west and mid-Wales. There will be no 24-hour ambulance cover in an area stretching from Tywyn through to Corwen and nearly to Wrexham, from an area from above Llanrwst in Conwy valley at the top of my constituency right down to the Dyfi estuary. These proposals are a disaster in particular for the elderly who live in rural communities. They live in fear. They realise

that if they are taken ill there will be no proper ambulance cover. It is time that the Welsh Office responded to the request from Gwynedd health authority, and ensured an adequate allocation for the ambulance service and that the £400,000 overspend by the Gwynedd ambulance service does not lead to a cut in the service.

Mr. Best: The hon. Gentleman will know that I have considerable sympathy for the view that he has just advanced about the ambulance service, but can he say whether the Welsh National party has any policies for rural Wales? If so, can he assure the House that there will be a Welsh National candidate in the Brecon and Radnor by-election, or is the Welsh National party so demoralised that it will not bother to put its policies before the electorate?

Mr. Thomas: I do not intend to use this debate, as have other hon. Members, as a means of referring to any particular by-election. All I will say is that a candidate for Brecon and Radnor will be selected on Saturday.
As for the way in which Government policies have affected the fabric of the economic life of rural communities, I ought to say that I would not have given way to the hon. Gentleman if I had thought that he would not make a serious point about the ambulance services. It will be a lesson to me that the hon. Gentleman does not make serious points. As for the effects of the Government's policies in the commerical sector, there have been a large number of bankruptcies among small firms in Wales. This is the unacceptable face of Thatcherism. The number of bankruptcies notified to the courts has risen from just over 279 to nearly 600 in 1984. Many of these businesses were operating in the Welsh countryside.
There is a tendency for us to examine rural society— many speakers have contributed to that syndrome today —in terms of problems. I have to live part of my life in inner-city London, part in inner-city Cardiff, and the better part of it in the Conwy valley and the Wnion valley in the Snowdonia national park. My experience of the rural communities is that they have massive resources. In particular, there are economic resources that do not materialise because people do not have the entrepreneurial opportunities to make them do so. Therefore, I welcome the new emphasis in the Government's economic and education policies on training initiatives.
One should also appreciate the strong cultural and social resources of these rural communities and the extent to which they are communities of participation, and take part in deciding their future. One of the most exciting developments in recent years—I know that the Minister of State is aware of this and has supported it—is the development of the community enterprise initiatives in Powys, in the Tanat valley and other areas, and particularly in the valley in Dyfed that I know best, the Teifi valley. I pay tribute to the support that the Minister of State has given to the work of Antur Teifi with help from the development board and the local authority in Dyfed. Antur Teifi and the other community co-operatives represent the way forward for many of these smaller communities in rural Wales where economic enterprise can be developed on the basis of community collaboration and control.
I stress the need for rural communities to have the resources to plan for themselves rather than to be subjected


to the structure planning of a central county council or a Welsh Office department. I pay tribute to the work of the Development Board for Rural Wales. I was fascinated to hear chapter 1—or was it chapter 6, or bits of both?— of the memoirs of the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) and I look forward to hearing more revelations from the Welsh Office in due course.
I pay tribute to the work of the board and to some of its long-serving staff. In particular, I mention Mr. Peter Garbett Edwards, who served us in mid-Wales so well, nobly and efficiently over the years. He was involved with the Mid-Wales development association, then with the Mid-Wales development corporation and now with the board. The work of the board shows the need for a sensitive approach to rural development and I am particularly pleased that the board has now increased its support for co-operatives and social programmes.
I welcome British Rail's investment on the Cambrian line. If it were not for this ill-timed debate, I should have spent today on the sprinter train going from Machynlleth up the Cambrian coastline. That would be a much more enjoyable and better way to spend my time than sitting here. We welcome this investment on the Cambrian coast, and the Barmouth bridge investment.
However, what is the point of having the highest quality of train service for our rural lines if the highest quality of bus service is not there to connect with it? Taking away from local authorities the overall co-ordinating role in transport through the Transport Bill means there is a danger that such connecting services will not continue. When the Welsh Office looks at that Bill before it concludes its passage through the other place, I hope that it will examine the need for co-ordination on an all-Wales level for passenger transport services so that we do not lose, as a result of this legislation, the co-ordination of bus and train services.

Mr. Keith Best: The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Thomas) and I have crossed swords on a number of occasions, I hope in a friendly way. I agree that it would be much more pleasent to be in rural Wales than standing here making a speech. I shall be brief because the House will want to listen to the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan).
The Opposition have done a great disservice to the people of rural Wales by tabling this motion. Once again, they have painted a picture of doom and gloom without hope—a picture that is unrepresentative of what has been happening in rural Wales. No mention has been made of the science parks of Aberystwyth and Newton or of the factory building programme of 17,500 sq ft in 1983–84, to add to the 47,867 sq ft already built in the town of Llandrindod Wells. No reference was made to the financial support for the formation of a "heart of Wales" tourist association to promote specifically the tourist facilities and attractions of that part of Wales. No mention was made of the construction of two 3,000 sq ft advance factories at Rhayader. No mention was made of the five factories at Builth Wells.
To listen to Opposition Members, one would think that nothing has been happening in rural Wales. Remarkable by its absence was any reference to the total United Kingdom economy. There was no reference to the CBI report which shows that our export order books are at a

record high for 25 years, that productivity has increased and that we have the highest rate of growth in western Europe. There was no reference to the facts that United Kingdom investment rose by 15 per cent. last year and that there is a new confidence in our economy at home and abroad.
There has been a sharp drop in net investment in overseas equities, to its lowest annual figure since the abolition of exchange controls in 1979. That has been because pension funds' and life assurance companies' net purchases of overseas shares fell to £590 million last year, compared to a peak of £2,840 million in 1982. Instead of going abroad, funds went largely into domestic equities and cash. Pension funds allocated 37 per cent. of their new money to net investment in United Kingdom companies' securities, compared to 23 per cent. in 1983. That is the measure of the confidence that the market has in our economy, but one would not believe that to hear the speeches from the Opposition Benches.
Wales has become the overseas investors' El Dorado. To obtain 25 per cent. of new jobs attributable to inward investment in the United Kingdom coming to Wales is not a good record for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and not a job well done. It is a superlative record and a herculean task to ensure, that so many new jobs are coming to Wales, in comparison to what is happening in the EEC.
We have a higher proportion of Japanese industry than any other comparable region in the EEC. The United States has a larger number of firms in Wales than in any other country. Second come the Germans. My hon. Friend the Member for Conwy (Mr. Roberts), who has just come back from Germany, tells me that 35 factories in Wales have some German involvement, and I believe that his visit has been successful in drumming up further investment for Wales.
However, there is no room for complacency. I accept that, and one has to face the fact that a domestic economy that is doing well does not necessarily solve the problem of unemployment. That must concern us deeply in Wales.
We can stimulate more jobs in rural areas in three sectors. The first has been mentioned already. We need to promote Wales as a tourist centre far more, particularly abroad. Far too few visitors to Wales come from abroad. Secondly, we must continue the road building process. It is significant that not one Opposition Member mentioned the more than £400 million being spent on the dualling of the A55 carriageway, which will open up development prospects to north-west Wales in the same way that the M4 has opened up south Wales. There are also the bypass projects that I have been pressing for on the Isle of Anglesey.
To judge from their remarks about bus services, Opposition Members have never spoken to the private operators who are waiting in the wings ready to come in to provide the services that are so badly needed in Wales. It is not all gloom and doom in Wales — there is success. The people of Wales acknowledge that, even if the Opposition do not.

Mr. James Callaghan: The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Thomas) referred to the beauties of his constituency and also to the inner resources that his constituents need. They certainly have them. Every rural community possesses


resources perhaps to an even greater extent than urban areas and, my word, the rural communities need them at present. The strength is there. As to the beauties of his constituency, I was reminded of what Ruskin, or Carlyle, said, that there is only one thing more beautiful than the drive from Dolgellau to Barmouth, and that is the drive from Barmouth to Dolgellau. If we are going for the tourism that the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Best) mentioned, we can do no better than inscribe that on our shields.
I wish to put one point to the Government. The Minister of State is such a delightful man that it is difficult to quarrel with him. Nevertheless, underneath that confident exterior today, in the almost brazen speech that he made, there must have lurked some elements of doubt. The market economy to which the Government are devoted applies in many areas, but it does not apply in the rural areas, least of all in agriculture. Therefore, there are residual responsibilities upon the Government. It is not sufficient for the Government to tell the rural communities that they have their inner strength in the great self-reliance upon which they have depended for many years. The Government have a responsibility to offer the rural communities, and especially the agricultural community, some advice and guidance. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) said, in a powerful speech, the rural communities, and the agricultural community in particular, are very uncertain about their future.
What guidance, if any, do the Government offer? They have a responsibility to offer that guidance precisely because the market economy does not operate in that field, precisely because the price for cereals is fixed, the price for milk is fixed, the price for beef is roughly fixed and the price for sheep is fixed. What do the Government advise the hill farmers and the small farmers of Wales to do when they themselves are partially responsible for fixing prices through the common agricultural policy?
We know that the income of the small farmer has been reduced as a result of the milk quota. What do the Government advise those who grow cereals to do? My right hon. and learned Friend said correctly that we in Wales are not as much affected by the cereals situation as the people in East Anglia are. Nevertheless, there is a growth of cereals in Wales. What is the advice? Should farmers grow more cereals? But the Government want us to grow fewer cereals. Do the Government believe that we should go over to quotas, or will they rely upon a price reduction? If the Government are in favour of going over to quotas, no farmers in Wales will grow fewer cereals, because, when the quota comes in, the farmers will find, as the dairy people found, that their quotas will be adversely affected because they have tried to diversify into beans or something else. What then is the Government's advice on that?
What do the Government advise those people in rural communities to do whose incomes have been reduced? Is the advice to substitute cereals for milk? Surely not. Is the advice to go for beef or for sheep, and then to find a market such as the present one, with over-production of cereals and of milk? If fewer cereals are to be grown and the milk quota is to be reduced, what are people supposed to do?

Are they supposed to take the reduction in income and go into the bed and breakfast business, or try to get into some other field—and, if so, what?
The Government have some responsibility for this situation. If the market economy prevailed, then I would agree — let the weakest go to the wall, let the communities be wound up or rely on whatever it is they can find to do—but that is not the situation.
The Government say that they want to preserve the rural communities and to strengthen them, so what advice do they offer the small farmer whose milk quota has been reduced so that his income is smaller and who certainly ought not to be encouraged to go over to cereals, in view of the ensuing surplus? Is he supposed to accept the reduction in income? If not, what alternatives do the Government propose to preserve, to safeguard and to strengthen those rural communities?

Mr. Barry Jones: The House will await with interest the reply of the Secretary of State for Wales to the potent questions of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan), the former Prime Minister.
The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Best) used the word herculean. He made a spirited defence of the policies of his right hon. Friend in recent years, but I should like to point out to him the herculean task that he and his right hon. Friend have with regard to unemployment in the largely rural county of Gwynedd. It amounts to 14,103, and male unemployment tops 21·5 per cent. I know that the hon. Gentleman will be listening hard to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for signs of change of policy and new job projects.
The Minister had a good story to tell on sheepmeat particularly, but I think that he greatly understated the agony of the small dairy farmers in Clwyd and in Dyfed. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) strongly emphasised the impact of Government policies on some of the more vulnerable aspects of agriculture in Wales.
I remind the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells), who attacked my party, that it was the Labour Government under the premiership of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth which legislated into existence the Development Board for Rural Wales and the Welsh Development Agency. Without these statutory bodies, Wales today would be an industrial desert and rural Wales would be without hope economically and socially. The Labour party, under my right hon. Friend's leadership, showed its imaginative interventionist care for rural Wales when it created the DBRW and the Welsh Development Agency. Unrestrained market forces would destroy the Welsh economy and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth implied, would annihilate rural Wales.
There are towns in rural Wales well distanced from the remaining industrial activity in Wales which have grave economic problems. I mention Pwllheli, Lampeter, Cardigan, Bangor and Caernarfon. They are united by the experience of suffering more than 22 per cent. male unemployment. Therefore, I believe that the Minister in his speech was complacent with regard to unemployment in the Principality and in the rural areas.


The Government have not told us today of the Mid-Wales Development Board's apprehension at the designation of the west midlands as an assisted area or the Telford new town enterprise zone. In today's cut-throat competitive world, rural Wales may be paying a high price for the right hon. Gentleman's failure in 1982 to keep mid-Wales as an assisted area. Nor did the Minister tell us how Dyfed and Gwynedd rural counties will fare economically after the hammer blows of the BP Oil Ltd. and Courtaulds closure plans. New jobs are unlikely to pass westwards to Dyfed and Gwynedd when west Glamorgan and Clwyd are desperately trying to shore up their industrial economies.
The Minister of State did not explain why he has allowed the European Commission to exclude Powys from eligibility for social fund aid. Powys sees this as a gratuitous kick in the teeth, given that other counties of Wales, and the neighbouring counties of Hereford and Worcester, are eligible. Powys, I know, wants, with social fund aid, to bestow high-class modern skills training upon its younger citizens.
I listened with sadness to the Minister of State pronouncing what was in effect the death sentence for the skillcentres at Llanelli and west Gwent. It appears to me that the rural county of Dyfed will be deeply disappointed, as will west Gwent, on hearing the news that the Minister released today.
Right hon. and hon. Members have mentioned education. I do not think that any hon. Member would deny that the rural counties of Wales have distinguished themselves in the provision of high quality classroom education for many generations. But today there is an atmosphere of crisis—the administrators, teachers and parents are all exhibiting deep concern. Her Majesty's inspectorate report says that there is
a slow but persistent decline in the quality of the learning environment … a substantial backlog of work has built up for repairs… pupils learning experiences are impoverished as the replacement of worn and outdated stock is being postponed … the drab appearance of many buildings does little to enhance the learning of pupils in schools where pressure on resources has already led to some impoverishment of experience.
Local education authorities in rural Wales are concerned. They have exhibited the most careful housekeeping in their budgets. Everyone in the education service in Wales knows that the widespread reductions in staffing are having an undesirable impact on the curriculum. Powys is a sad example—34 teaching posts are to be axed; the school meals service is under immense pressure; and it is proposed to raise the age of entry to nursery schools. In Powys as many as eight village schools are earmarked for closure in that very rural county. The system of targets and penalties is deeply injurious to the prospects of the most vulnerable of our pupils in the state sector in rural Wales.
Hon. Members have referred to the Transport Bill. It was a reflection of the deep concern felt throughout Wales. The Conservative proposals will crucify non-car owners in rural areas; their mobility will be drastically restricted. Bus users in outlying areas could be cut off if the Bill is enacted, not only from their employment and their social life, but from their recreational facilities.
Rural bus users could find that regular timetabled services disappear. Hon. Members are concerned about the potential decline in the safe maintenance of buses. The employees of the National Bus Company tell me that they are worried about their pension prospects and deeply concerned about potential redundancies. The Bill threatens

to injure the quality of life in the more far-flung settlements of rural Wales. It can be summed up as a charter for less service and more costs.
I know that the Mid-Wales Development Board and the Welsh Women's Institute will have nothing to do with the Bill. They believe that it is a disaster. They have been highly critical of it from the start and have not lessened their criticisms as the Bill has progressed.
The Cabinet can best help rural Wales by a strategic change in economic policy. Specifically the Mid-Wales Development Board is entitled to a vote of confidence, it needs new, enhanced powers and it should be enabled to build even more advanced factories and science parks. It should have a guaranteed enlarged budget for several years ahead.
It is clear that the road links between south and north Wales must be considerably improved, and specifically the A483 and the A470 should be tackled. In the Mid-Wales heartland the A44 between Rhayader and Leominster must be upgraded as soon as possible.
I hope that, even at this late stage, the Secretary of State will fight to give eligibility to Powys in the EEC social fund. The Government should redouble their efforts for a larger social fund in the Community. Mid-Wales is desperately vulnerable because it is not an assisted area. Moreover, rural Wales will be vulnerable for as long as that territory lacks a strong regional policy. The right hon. Gentleman has presided over a weakening of regional policy in Wales. A strong regional policy would help us to hold on to some of our school leavers. My fear is that we shall lose able youngsters to Telford and the west midlands.
Local authorities could help the right hon. Gentleman create more work. What is needed for them to be effective is a freeing of the county and district authorities from the yolk of targets and penalties. To be without a job is a desperately demoralising experience. To be unemployed in our rural villages and towns is to know the true meaning of loneliness and isolation. Unemployment is gradually becoming a frightening reality in our country communities.
Government cuts in the public sector have vastly decreased job vacancies in the largest employers in rural areas—the local councils, the hospitals and the schools. The jobless move away permanently and the tightly knit family communities that comprise the heartland of Britain and Wales are torn apart. We believe that the quality of life must be improved for those living in our scattered rural counties. The Conservatives have cut the lifeline to our rural areas, and the way of living preserved for generations has suddenly come under threat. The Government are guilty of adopting a complacent attitude towards ruraĺ Wales.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Edwards): In his concluding remarks, the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) referred to a system of targets and GREs in local government finance. It is because we very much appreciate the problems of rural areas, especially those in Wales, that the targets and GREs for Powys and Gwynedd are the highest of any local authority in England and Wales. It is just one sign of the importance and priority that we attach to the particular problems that they face.
The motion and the Opposition's speeches accuse the Government of complacency, but have singularly failed to put forward positive proposals—as my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Harvey) pointed out in a devastating speech.
The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) spoke somewhat curiously about shaping the structure of society. He deplored the historic depopulation that has gone on for a century and a half. He seemed to be unaware that during the past decade the population in mid and rural Wales has been rising strongly. He was wrong to give the impression that it is simply a matter of old people retiring to the beauties of rural Wales. The fact is that over the same period the working age groups have grown in every county in Wales. That is hardly a sign of an area in a desperate state of decline.
The hon. Member for Pontypridd called for imaginative proposals. He did not put them forward himself, but he and the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) warned about the difficulties facing agriculture and the need to cut the surpluses of and expenditure on the system of agricultural support in Europe. I agree with a great deal of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said about future consumption trends that may affect agriculture. They both called for a White Paper.
It was perhaps the speech of the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan), that showed not only the need for guidance but the need for taking time and for consultation before giving such guidance. In his very short contribution he spelled out a great many of the difficulties that confront us and agriculture. Whilst I agree with him about the need to map a way through these uncertainties, nothing would be more disastrous for agriculture than to draw that map without properly ascertaining the way forward. I and my Department have been spending much time in recent weeks and months talking to those in the industry and those concerned with it, and discussing these matters with everyone with expert knowledge.
I regard it as one of the highest priorities for my Department to devote much attention to what I regard as a central issue — the need to devise systems of agricultural support that support the rural areas and do not contain within them the seeds of their own destruction, as so many of our systems of support have in the past. I am consulting on these issues with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and with those who have responsibility for agriculture. I hope that we shall be able to come forward with some guidance. I would have wished that we might have from the Opposition a positive injection in the debate on these important matters.
The Liberal party's amendment represented a direct and outright by-election bid—"Vote for us, and we promise you a jolly ride on the gravy train." The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) was careful not to say who would pay. He said that he was against agricultural rating but, as I pointed out in an intervention, his friends in the SDP have made it clear that they believe that it is the farmers who should pay for all these goodies through the rating of farms and agricultural land. No doubt these contributions will be charmingly and politely explained to the electorate of Brecon and Radnor

by the candidate who fought me in 1979 and who achieved the lowest vote for the Liberal party in my constituency for over 100 years.
The entry of young people into agriculture was referred to by the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North. He will know that the Northfield committee came out against the introduction of grants or subsidised loans for young farmers. We have made it easier for young farmers to enter the industry via smallholdings and by security of tenure changes for agricultural holdings. These will help to make holdings available for letting, encouraging smallholding tenants to move on. The Agricultural Holdings Act 1984 also introduced compulsory retirement at 65 for smallholding tenants, as recommended by the Northfield committee. We are currently revising the capital grants scheme. One proposal under consideration is the best way to help young entrants.
Nowhere was the extraordinary paucity of ideas from the Opposition more strikingly illustrated than in what they had to say about transport. We were reminded by my hon. Friend the Minister of State how in 1977 the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) presided over a conference in Aberystwyth at which he said:
We have all watched with growing concern, particularly in recent years, a steady decline in rural transport services".
Later he said:
We still have to face the fact, however, that there are many areas in which conventional services would be an expensive luxury. It is not good economic sense to run ordinary buses on routes when passenger loadings are in twos and threes; and where the terrain makes such operations physically difficult anyway.
Of course, the Labour party did nothing about that, and the decline that he described has gone on since. It is illustrated in the Mid-Glamorgan public transport plan and by the announcement that there may have to be a closure of the National Bus Company facilities in my constituency. The Opposition have failed to face up to the fact that the decline has been going on and that it is this Government who are bringing forward proposals to give the opportunity for new services to be introduced.
During the debate there has been a good deal of emphasis on the need for improved access to the rural areas of Wales. Certainly this Government have carried out a massive improvement of the road imfrastructure in Wales. When I look back at the threats that hung over the railway lines of Wales when we came into office, it is extraordinary to consider the positition as it is today. My hon. Friend the Member for Clywyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer) spoke of wild rumours about closing railway lines. Of course, they are wild and wholly false. The reality is established by what has been happening to the central Wales, the mid-Wales and the Cambrian coast lines. A sustained effort involving local authorities, Mid-Wales Development, the Wales tourist board, the Welsh Office and British Rail, involving more than £5 million of investment by British Rail, has given those railway lines a security that they have not had for many years.
The right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon asked about the relative support for the national tourist boards in England, Scotland and Wales. When I got the information it came as a pleasant surprise because I had not realised how relatively well we were doing in Wales. We have total expenditure by the Wales tourist board in grant in-aid and projects in 1985–86 of over £7 million. In relation to our population that compares very well with the expenditure by the Scottish tourist board of £8·8 million and of the expenditure by the English tourist board of £16·7 million.


The improvement in the level of expenditure by Wales tourist board over the last few years also compares favourably with expenditure in the other countries.
The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conway (Mr. Thomas) asked about the Government's response to the Countryside Commission's report on the uplands. 1 know the hon. Member takes a great interest in these matters. No doubt it was because he has so much research going on that he overlooked the fact that the Government printed their response on 31 January. If he looks for it, I am sure he will find it and be able to read it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West referred to the importance of rural post offices. I must emphasise that the closures that are taking place are of urban post offices that are within about a mile of other post offices. The position is different in rural areas and the Post Office has given assurances that the rural network will be maintained.
My hon. Friend also asked about consideration given to proposals made by education authorities to close rural schools. In considering the balance of educational advantage we are concerned about the ability of the school to deliver a broad, balanced and relevant curriculum, but we also take account of distance and travelling time. I made it clear that I sympathise with those who believe that village schools have an important contribution to make to the community, although that has to be balanced against the need to devote adequate resources to the education of children generally and to provide the quality that we need. We have launched the new initiatives that my hon. Friend the Minister of State mentioned because we attach importance to those matters.
The hon. Members for Alyn and Deeside and for Merionnydd Nant Conwy mentioned the recent action taken by the European Commission to exclude Powys from access to the social fund. We have already made strong representations to the Commission, and the Government are now taking the matter up at ministerial level. It is a mistaken and misguided action with which we disagree.
It is absurd to accuse the Government of complacency over the problems facing farming. Milk producers face a difficult period of adjustment. No one who represents Pembrokeshire could have any doubt about that, but the Opposition should be honest. They have been calling for savings in the common agricultural policy and they have been criticising surpluses, but it is idle to pretend that change can be achieved without discomfort and hardship. The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) voted against the legislation that established the outgoers scheme which is now the lifeline for more than half the Welsh milk producers.
The vigorous fight that the Government have put up to ensure the future of the beef premium scheme and the sheepmeat regime has been mentioned. I remind the House that it was this Government who introduced the sheepmeat regime in October 1980. It has been the bedrock upon which the industry's prosperity has been established. It was this Government who extended the less-favoured areas and gave an additional 400,000 hectares of coverage within Wales so that 80 per cent. of the agricultural area of Wales is now covered. Hill livestock compensatory allowances are expected to be claimed by 15,000 farmers —a 50 per cent. increase—and enhanced rates of grant are now available to about 9,000 extra farmers.
It was ironic to hear the remarks made by the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside about employment in a week during which Laura Ashley has announced that it is proposing to move its headquarters accounts and personnel departments to mid-Wales, and that it is involved in a massive extension which will provide over 500 new jobs. It is also ironic at a time when Shotton Paper has given the biggest boost in modern times to employment in forestry in Wales, and when we are announcing a massive extension of training facilities in Wales.
The Government are accused of complacency by a party that lives in the past, that fails to recognise the certainty of change or its desirability, but clings tenaciously to the ideas, prejudices and myths of the past and seeks to prevent and obstruct the road to progress in every way that it can.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes, 160, Noes 267.

Division No. 225]
[7.03 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Ewing, Harry


Anderson, Donald
Faulds, Andrew


Ashdown, Paddy
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Forrester, John


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Foster, Derek


Barnett, Guy
Foulkes, George


Barron, Kevin
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Freud, Clement


Beith, A. J.
Garrett, W. E.


Bell, Stuart
George, Bruce


Benn, Tony
Godman, Dr Norman


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Gould, Bryan


Bermingham, Gerald
Gourlay, Harry


Bidwell, Sydney
Hamilton, James (M well N)


Blair, Anthony
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hardy, Peter


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Haynes, Frank


Caborn, Richard
Heffer, Eric S. 


Callaghan, Rt Hon J
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Campbell, Ian
Home Robertson, John


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Canavan, Dennis
Howells, Geraint


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)


Cartwright, John
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Cohen, Harry
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)


Coleman, Donald
John, Brynmor


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Conlan, Bernard
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Kennedy, Charles


Corbyn, Jeremy
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Cowans, Harry
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Kirkwood, Archy


Craigen, J. M. 
Lambie, David


Crowther, Stan
Lamond, James


Cunningham, Dr John
Leadbitter, Ted


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Litherland, Robert


Dormand, Jack
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Dubs, Alfred
Loyden, Edward


Duffy, A. E. P. 
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
McGuire, Michael


Eadie, Alex
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Eastham, Ken
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)
McWilliam, John


Ellis, Raymond
Madden, Maxv


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Marek, Dr John






Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Martin, Michael
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Maxton, John
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Maynard, Miss Joan
Skinner, Dennis


Meacher, Michael
Soley, Clive


Meadowcroft, Michael
Spearing, Nigel


Michie, William
Steel, Rt Hon David


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Stott, Roger


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Straw, Jack


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Thome, Stan (Preston)


O'Brien, William
Tinn, James


Parry, Robert
Torney, Tom


Pavitt, Laurie
Wallace, James


Pendry, Tom
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Penhaligon, David
Wareing, Robert


Pike, Peter
Weetch, Ken


Prescott, John
Welsh, Michael


Radice, Giles
White, James


Randall, Stuart
Wigley, Dafydd


Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Richardson, Ms Jo
Winnick, David


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Rogers, Allan



Rowlands, Ted
Tellers for the Ayes:


Ryman, John
Mr. Ray Powell and


Sheerman, Barry
Dr. Roger Thomas




NOES


Adley, Robert
Emery, Sir Peter


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Fallon, Michael


Ancram, Michael
Favell, Anthony


Ashby, David
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Aspinwall, Jack
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Fletcher, Alexander


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Fookes, Miss Janet


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Forman, Nigel


Batiste, Spencer
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bellingham, Henry
Forth, Eric


Best, Keith
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Bevan, David Gilroy
Fox, Marcus


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Franks, Cecil


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Blackburn, John
Freeman, Roger


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Fry, Peter


Body, Richard
Gale, Roger


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Galley, Roy


Bottomley, Peter
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bright, Graham
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bruinvels, Peter
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Buck, Sir Antony
Goodlad, Alastair


Burt, Alistair
Gorst, John


Butcher, John
Gow, Ian


Butterfill, John
Gower, Sir Raymond


Carlisle, Kenneth(Lincoln)
Grant, Sir Anthony


Carttiss, Michael
Greenway, Harry


Cash, William(Portsm'th N)
Gregory, Conal


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Griffiths, Peter (portsm in N)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Grist, Ian


Chope, Christopher
Grylls, Michael


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Gummer, John Selwyn


Clegg, Sir Walter
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Cockeram, Eric
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Colvin, Michael
Hampson, Dr Keith


Conway, Derek
Hanley, Jeremy


Coombs, Simon
Hannam, John


Cope, John
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Cormack, Patrick
Harris, David


Critchley, Julian
Harvey, Robert


Crouch, David
Haselhurst, Alan


Dickens, Geoffrey
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Dorrell, Stephen
Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Hawksley, Warren


Dover, Den
Hayward, Robert


Durant, Tony
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Henderson, Barry





Hicks, Robert
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hind, Kenneth
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Hirst, Michael
Pollock, Alexander


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm) 
Porter, Barry


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Portillo, Michael


Holt, Richard
Powell, William (Corby)


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Powley, John


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)
Price, Sir David


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Prior, Rt Hon James


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Proctor, K. Harvey


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Hunter, Andrew
Raffan, Keith


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rathbone, Tim


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Rhodes James, Robert


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Key, Robert
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


King, Rt Hon Tom
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Knowles, Michael
Rowe, Andrew


Knox, David
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Lamont, Norman
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Lang, Ian
Sayeed, Jonathan


Latham, Michael
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Lawler, Geoffrey
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Lawrence, Ivan
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lester, Jim
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Shersby, Michael


Lightbown, David
Silvester, Fred


Lilley, Peter
Sims, Roger


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lord, Michael
Speller, Tony


Luce, Richard
Spencer, Derek


Lyell, Nicholas
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


McCrindle, Robert
Squire, Robin


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Stanbrook, Ivor


Macfarlane, Neil
Steen, Anthony


MacGregor, John
Stern, Michael


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Maclean, David John
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


McQuarrie, Albert
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Major, John
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Malins, Humfrey
Stokes, John


Maples, John
Stradling Thomas, J.


Mather, Carol
Sumberg, David


Maude, Hon Francis
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Terlezki, Stefan


Merchant, Piers
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Miller, Hal (B'grove) 
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Mills, lain (Meriden) 
Thornton, Malcolm


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Thurnham, Peter


Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Moate, Roger
Tracey, Richard


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Trippier, David


Moore, John
Trotter, Neville


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Moynihan, Hon C. 
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Murphy, Christopher
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Neale, Gerrard
Waddington, David


Needham, Richard
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Nelson, Anthony
Walden, George


Newton, Tony
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Nicholls, Patrick
Waller, Gary


Norris, Steven
Walters, Dennis


Onslow, Cranley
Ward, John


Oppenheim, Phillip
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Page, Sir John (Harrow W)
Watson, John


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Watts, John


Parris, Matthew
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abdgn)
Wells, Sir John (Maidsione)


Pawsey, James
Wheeler, John






Whitney, Raymond
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Winterton, Mrs Ann



Winterton, Nicholas
Tellers for the Noes:


Wolfson, Mark
Mr. Michael Neubert and


Wood, Timothy
Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd. 


Yeo, Tim

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 33 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.

MR. SPEAKER: forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House recognises the difficulties faced by the farming industry and by rural communities in a period of change, but welcomes the reversal of the long period of depopulation in much of rural Wales, and supports the continued efforts of the Government to improve the services provided and to develop employment opportunities in the countryside.

Higher Education

Mr. Giles Radice: I beg to move, That this House deplores the Government's short-sighted and defeatist policy on higher education which, because it fails to match the nation's need for a sustained supply of graduates, for increased opportunities for continuing education and for high quality research, is a recipe for national economic, industrial and social decline.

Mr. Speaker: I must announce to the House that [ have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Radice: No education paper in recent years has received such universal condemnation as the Green Paper "The Development of Higher Education into the 1990s".
The Guardian comments that it elevates 
anorexia nervosa into a public policy.
The Times Higher Education Supplement concludes:
we knew already how negative and philistine the Government's approach to higher education had become, but to have it so wretchedly confirmed is a shocking, and chilling, experience.
It is not just the newspapers of the Liberal establishment, so despised by this Government and one or two hon. Members, that are critical; even The Times compares the breadth of vision shared by the University Grants Committee and the National Advisory Body for Public Sector Higher Education with the Green Paper's lack of vision. The Financial Times predicts that it
will probably please nobody who is seriously interested in the matter.
The Economist criticises the Green Paper for getting student numbers wrong, for being anti-feminist, for failing to encourage practical co-operation with industry and for failing to plan for more rather than fewer students. Even the pro-Tory popular press is uncertain about how to present the Green Paper. The Daily Express, searching for a popular theme, talks about
a crackdown on left-wing student bully boys
as if the Federation of Conservative Students did not exist.
Only The Sun, with its customary maturity of judgment, accuracy and sureness of touch, is on the Secretary of State's side. It proclaims:
There need be no tears over Sir Keith Joseph's proposals to reduce the number of universities … Some of the new centres of learning are universities in name only, with low academic standards and unchecked left-wing intolerance and hooliganism. If, for example, Essex were to crumble into the North Sea, the only disadvantage would be an increase in coastal pollution.
Those were not the Secretary of State's words, but the words of The Sun, which is his friend.
Of course the academic world has been hostile to the Green Paper. That is perhaps not surprising. What is surprising is the almost total absence of support even among the Government's friends. Most fair-minded observers would agree that the Secretary of State's statement to the House on 21 May when he introduced the Green Paper got an almost uniformly hostile reception. A few hon. Members may be hoping that what they perceive to be the merits of the Green Paper will win through, despite the barrage of criticism, and that is obviously what the Secretary of State hopes. But the trouble with the Green Paper is that it is not just a public relations disaster; if implemented, it would be a disaster for Britain.
By any standards, the Green Paper is a grossly inadequate state paper. It has few new ideas, and there is little, if any, attempt to justify its conclusions by argument and evidence. Above all, it lacks vision and imagination.


The enormity of the Green Paper's failure is highlighted by the background against which it was produced and by our national requirements. Hon. Members will remember that there was a cut in the recurrent university grant of 7 per cent. in real terms between 1980–81 and 1984–85. That cut has meant 11,000 to 12,000 well-qualified students being turned away every year, and the loss of nearly 6,000 jobs. Above all, given the scale of the cuts and their uneven distribution, it has meant a collapse of academic morale — hardly the best spur for the increased efficiency for which the Secretary of State calls.
The universities had barely recovered from 1981 when, on 9 May this year, the UGC wrote to all vice-chancellors and principals telling each institution to prepare for Government support to decline by an average of 2 per cent. in real terms over the next three years. That is equivalent to the closure of a middle-sized university such as Southampton, Exeter or Durham, each year.
Under the selective system of support for research, which the UGC favours, and which the Government support, the grant to some universities may be cut by far more than 2 per cent. The UGC says that universities which suffer less than the average can do so only at the expense of other universities. Therefore, at a time when student numbers are at their peak, the universities have been told to make do with less and less money.
It is true—the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) has reminded me of this a few times, although I did not need reminding of it — that, so far, polytechnics and other institutions of higher education have taken many of the students who would formerly have obtained university places. All credit to them for doing so without receiving adequate additional income. Indeed, the National Advisory Body says that there was a 20 per cent. real cut in expenditure per pupil between 1980–81 and 1984–85. It has warned the Secretary of State that taking on extra students without sufficient extra resources puts a heavy burden on staff and is a threat to the maintenance of quality. Despite the Prime Minister's commitment at the general election to maintaining level funding for universities, and despite the Green Paper's pious words about providing sufficient resources for higher education in the current planning period, cuts have been made and are still being made, and more are planned for the future.
The position could and should be different. If we are to survive and prosper as a nation, we need a sustained supply of highly skilled, highly motivated and highly adaptable graduates, capable of responding to the pace of change and of participating effectively in our democratic society. We need a sustained supply of high-quality research, not only to satisfy the needs of industry, but to advance learning. There is little reference to learning in the Green Paper. Above all, if we are to survive as a nation, we need a dynamic, vigorous and innovative system of higher education.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that 66,000 more people are in higher education now than in 1979? Is he saying that the quality of their studies is now inferior? Can he confirm whether a future Labour Government would restore any cuts?

Mr. Radice: I said that the National Advisory Body has advised the Secretary of State that if the unit of resource in polytechnics and other institutions of higher education is not maintained, quality will be threatened.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: But it is not under threat at the moment?

Mr. Radice: I simply quoted the NAB, which advises the Secretary of State. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has read that advice, but if he did, he would discover that that is the case.
The Labour party believes that the Government are wrong to cut resources as they have. The NAB and the UGC should have the security of funding — the truly level funding—for which they ask and should not have to make cuts, as the Secretary of State is asking them to do. In 1990, there will be no case for cutting resources to higher education in the way that the Green Paper suggests.
If the Secretary of State will not accept that description of our national requirements from me, he should at least heed his advisers, which are the UGC and the NAB, whose chairman is the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science. I am sad that he is not present this evening. Hon. Members will remember the advice given last year to the Secretary of State in the eloquent joint statement from the UGC and the NAB. They called for measures to broaden access, including introducing the new principle of ability to benefit. They called for a new emphasis on continuing education, which they saw as essential economically and socially. They called for a sustained research effort, and warned that
to curtail research would in the long run impoverish the nation materially as well as culturally.
They rejected the Department's forecast of student numbers after 1990 as under-estimating the participation rate of women, the numbers of mature students, and the impact of the changing social composition of the population. The UGC asked for truly level funding and NAB wanted extra resources, to cope with additional student demand among other things. What is the Green Paper's response to those vital issues? On most of them, the Government have ignored their advice or stated a contrary or modified view without arguing out the case.
On ability to benefit, the Government accept the principles but then qualify them so heavily as to make their acceptance virtually meaningless. The chapter on continuing education is so cursory as to amount to a deliberate snub. Clearly, the Prime Minister's blue pencil has been at work.

Mr. Greenway: No.

Mr. Radice: Well, it is three and a half pages long. That is not good enough for a Green Paper on what the NAB and the UGC said was a most important addition to the Robbins principles.
The Government say that their aim is that the contribution of higher education to the nation's research effort should continue on about the present scale. That is a misleading statement because the Government are well aware that the amount of public money going to university research will decline over the next three years. Indeed, they propose that some departments and universities could lose their research function altogether. The Government say that they hope that industry will fill the gap. If so, how and by how much? We need concrete answers, not pious hopes.

Sir Kenneth Lewis: Of course research has been cut, and quite rightly. Some of it has not been justified in terms of national need. The hon. Gentleman asked how we can be sure that industry will fill the gap. Industry will fill the gap if the research that it wants is followed up in universities that research is in the interests of industry and hence the nation.

Mr. Radice: The problem with that theory is that industry wants short-term gains.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Be fair.

Mr. Radice: The problem with research is that pure research sometimes takes 20 years to become effective in the form of applied research. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman, who is knowledgable about industry and many other matters, is not aware of that obvious point.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Radice: I hope that the hon. Lady will forgive me if I do not—many hon. Members want to speak and this is a short debate.
On student numbers, the Green Paper accepts variant Y which, predictably, is the lowest Department of Education and Science estimate of student numbers in the 1990s, without even bothering to argue the case. The Government's response is discourteous and intellectually disreputable.
On resources, the Government cannot decide whether their justification for the cuts that they want to make is that the economy has been so unsuccessful that the country cannot afford its present higher education system and that the Government's economic policy has been so unsuccessful that we cannot afford it, or that student numbers are falling. The problem with the latter argument is that student numbers, as even the Green Paper admits, will be at a record level until 1990. The argument until 1990 must be in terms of insufficient resources. After that date, argument is about rationalisation or, to use the Under-Secretary of State's unhappy phrase, "rolling the wicket for rationalisation". I should have thought that it is much more like "digging up the wicket for destruction".
A muddle runs throughout the Green Paper. The Government wants higher education to contribute more effectively to the national economy but appears to believe that an impoverished and contracting higher education system will serve our economic needs best. That is nonsense.
Despite the lip service paid in the Green Paper to the importance of arts subjects for their own sake and that of industry and commerce, the shift to science and engineering will take place — contrary to the UGC's advice and what the House of Lords Select Committee said —at the expense of the arts. That also is nonsense.
Despite the Jarratt report's recommendation about long-term planning and long-term planning horizons, and despite the experience of 1981, the Green Paper appears to believe that a higher education can become more efficient against a background of contraction and closure. That again is nonsense. The Government want to cut resources to higher education not because there are rational arguments for doing so but because the Cabinet wants to cut public spending. That is the reality behind the Green Paper.
The Green Paper is a muddle and its arguments are weak — when they are stated at all — because the

Government's higher education policy is not shaped by educational considerations, demography or sound economics but because they believe in cutting public spending. The consequences of this ideological fixation are likely to be appalling— — loss of opportunities for young people, the closure of whole departments or even institutions, loss of jobs, redundancies, institutions’ research functions being downgraded or abolished, little expansion in continuing education and the collapse of morale throughout higher education.
As our motion says, the Green Paper
is a recipe for national economic, industrial and social decline.
The Labour party rejects the Government's barbaric, Philistine and defeatist approach. We accept the advice of the UGC and the NAB—the Government's advisers— about access, continuing education, student numbers and resources.

Mr. Dickens: But will Labour restore the money?

Mr. Radice: Yes. We have said that we support what the UGC and NAB are asking for in their advice to the Government. Higher education will have, however, to adapt to changing needs. We offer higher education a future that serves the nation's needs and we shall campaign throughout the country for our positive alternative and against the Government's Green Paper.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Sir Keith Joseph): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
congratulates Her Majesty's Government on its policies for ensuring that higher education is better managed and more attuned to the needs of the economy, for maintaining and enhancing standards, and for broadening the criteria for access to higher education; urges Her Majesty's Government to continue to seek ways of making more effective use of the resources available for higher education; and welcomes the framework for the future development of higher education set out in Cmnd. 9524."•
Higher education should not be debated in the terms which the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) has chosen to use. Higher education is to be judged by quality. It can be judged properly only by quality, excellence, fitness for purpose, scholarship, research— basic and otherwise —[HON. MEMBERS: "Access?"] — learning, cultivation of the intellect— "And access."]—and maturity. Access must take all of those factors into account. Access for the sake of access is of no service to those who are given access or to the country.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: That is elitism.

Sir Keith Joseph: If it be elitist, I am one who wishes to see thoroughly well trained surgeons, thoroughly well trained engineers and thoroughly developed intellects among those who take decisions on our citizens.
I do not suggest that all those qualities can be secured only by those who have higher education. However, we can judge the higher education available by the possession of those qualities. I do not believe that many people in higher education would disagree with that.
The Government frame their approach by those criteria. It was by those criteria that I spoke to the British Academy a couple of years ago. I hoped that the Green Paper would be discussed on the basis of those criteria both outside and


inside the House. I say this diffidently, but I hoped that my own fairly well-known preoccupation with quality would have earned that much.
In recent decades, under Governments of both parties, the country has gone through a period of relative economic failure. Judging by what we hoped to achieve and by what has been achieved by some of our neighbours in north-west Europe, we have had less prosperity and therefore less well-endowed public and social services.
It is open to all to apportion blame as they wish between Governments of all parties or between managements and trade unions, but relative economic failure is a fact.

Mr. Jack Straw: rose—

Sir Keith Joseph: I am sorry, but I want to make as brief a speech as possible because many hon. Members want to take part in the debate.

Mr. Straw: rose—

Sir Keith Joseph: Very well, I shall give way once.

Mr. Straw: The Secretary of State seeks to apportion blame—

Sir Keith Joseph: I was about to deal with that.

Mr. Straw: The Secretary of State cannot know the question that I wish to put to him unless he is clairvoyant. He seeks to apportion blame for our current economic difficulties, which have become worse in the last six years. Does he recall that in speeches such as that at Preston in September 1974 he persuaded the Conservative party to follow its monetarist policy with the conviction that that policy would generate employment, prosperity and wealth? What has gone wrong?

Sir Keith Joseph: At Preston I spoke of the need to restrain public spending if we were to abate inflation. The forecasts have come true, to that extent.
The hon. Gentleman interrupted an analysis on which I had embarked. We have been through decades of relative economic failure. I am certainly not putting the blame on higher education, but there is no evidence from the last decades that rapid expansion of higher education in itself secures economic success. Of course it does not. Much more is involved in economic success.
Some outside the House have quoted, against what they see as the Green Paper's approach, the vision of the great Cardinal Newman 130 years ago. His was a vision which we can still universally admire and to which I adhere. However, I ask the House to remember that Newman spoke at a time when such universities as there were— they were few and there were no equivalents to polytechnics — were not tax-financed. They were financed privately and to some extent by local authorities.
Because we have not done as well as we would have wished economically over the past 40 years, and because higher education is now largely tax-financed, it is valid to say — as the Green Paper says — that we must spend public money sensibly and that part of higher education should make its contribution to the success of the economy. I emphasise that I am referring only to some aspects of higher education being involved in that contribution.
The Green Paper does not suggest that higher education is merely an instrument for improving economic

performance. I should never suggest that, nor would the Government. The Green Paper takes for granted the purpose of higher education of which I spoke earlier. In my British Academy lecture I explicitly recognised that among the chief purposes of higher education is the pursuit of learning as something to be valued in its own right, the general cultivation of the intellect and the
refinement of the ideas of the age.
That is the essence of Newman's ideas.
Those purposes are not, nor should they be, directly concerned with economic benefit. Indeed, some teachers and scholars in many fields have traditionally and properly distanced themselves from such concerns to achieve a greater degree of profundity, accuracy and dispassionate understanding. That capacity for dispassion is one of the glories of higher education which I cherish and wish to see preserved.
The pursuit of learning for its own sake and the general cultivation of the intellect are not incompatible with greater enterprise or with a contribution to economic success. On the contrary, only to the extent that we are economically successful can we continue to find the resources to support pure learning, reflection and the refinement of ideas.
We must also remember that, although some treasured parts of higher education are concerned with learning for its own sake, much of higher education is not of that character. Much of what is taught in departments of engineering, science, law and medicine, for example, is directly economically relevant and involves the pursuit of knowledge and understanding at the highest levels.
When the Green Paper asks academics to pay due attention to enterprise and economic success, it does not argue in favour of a philistine disregard for scholarship. It asks for recognition that the refinement of the intellect and a contribution to economic success are not incompatible but are mutually dependent and that the pure pursuit of understanding and the acquisition of directly economically relevant skills are equally valid aspects of higher education. Neither is to be despised. The Government know that, and so should their critics.
It is because the Government so well understand that higher education's function is the pursuit and expansion of learning through scholarship and research, the trans-mission of values, knowledge and skills and the cultivation of the intellect and of maturity that we set such store by rigour, excellence and fitness for purpose. That is why the Government so strongly welcome the appointment by the committee of vice-chancellors and principals of a committee under the vice-chancellor of Lancaster university to examine universities’ internal validation procedures. That is why the Government set up the Lindop committee.
We need the pursuit of learning, the cultivation of the intellect and vocational education. There is nothing new about vocational education in the history of the universities.
We rightly spend large sums of public money on higher education. We believe it to be our duty, without being dirigiste or going in for manpower planning, to try to predict the broad trends that higher education should consider serving. Now that the Jarratt committee has reported, it is plain for us all to see that a combination of the review of the UGC, recommended by that committee and accepted by the Government, and the encouragement of universities to organise their decision-making process


so that they can make judgments across the whole of their area will make them perhaps more capable and willing to make the predictions about broad trends that the Government have ventured to make in the Green Paper. It is because we believe that in this highly competitive world more jobs will depend to a greater extent on science and engineering skills, and more jobs, relying as they do upon consumers, will depend not only upon technical but upon management and enterprise skills in those subjects — I say that without denigrating the skills of management and enterprise in non-scientific and non-engineering departments — that we have on several occasions openly suggested a switch in the proportion of places—

Mr. Max Madden: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Keith Joseph: No, because I am anxious to finish my speech.

Mr. Madden: rose—

Sir Keith Joseph: I am sorry. I shall ask for the leave of the House to reply to the debate, when I shall deal with hon. Members’ questions.
Several times we have suggested a switch, as the House knows. There is an increasingly pervasive indispensabil-ity, for economic success, of science and engineering in entrepreneurship, management and technical skills. Unless we prosper economically, whatever the hon. Member for Durham, North hopes one day to be able to do, we shall not be able to afford to support learning, scholarship and research to the extent that we all want.
We are not the only country making that judgment. Yesterday I was in Luxembourg, where all the members of the Economic Community talked of making the same switch. I hope that the House will remember that we face a fall in the age cohort in the 1990s of no less than 33 per cent. The hon. Member for Durham, North carefully avoided giving figures for that fall. That fall is not a prediction because it follows ineluctably from the births that have already occurred, and it is against that fall that the Government are proposing in the Green Paper, and not in final form, a 14 per cent. reduction in the number of places. I hope that the House will remember also that this Government and their predecessor have made possible an expansion of no fewer than 60,000 places in higher education as a whole during the past six years, a rise of no less than 15 per cent. Therefore, we now have a record proportion of a record age vintage in higher education.
The proposals in the Green Paper are such that that record proportion of the age vintage will be exceeded. After the fall in the age cohort and in the number of places, and if the Green Paper's proposals are validated by Government decisions to be made later, there will be a rise from 13·5 per cent. of the age vintage now in higher education to 15·5 per cent.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: What about the Prime Minister's target of 22 per cent. in 1972?

Mr. Dickens: Listen and learn.

Sir Keith Joseph: Moreover, we are proposing to accept the UGC and NAB proposals to widen the Robbins eligibility. It is true that we have emphasised the importance of the fact that institutions of higher education should take into account motivation and maturity when admitting students, but surely that would be agreed in all

parts of the House as being sensible. We have not only widened eligibility, but provided for places that will increase the age participation index, we are encouraging continuing education and expecting more women to go to higher education, and we are making provision for more mature people to do so.
If the Government's hopes, articulated in the speech that I made at Sheffield nearly two years ago, for more successful school education come true, and if the trends of eligible applicants for higher education prove that we are not being optimistic enough, we have declared our intention to review those trends and reconsider the provision that we are making.
The hon. Member for Durham, North skirted three main facts. He skirted the fact that Labour, in office, cut higher education spending by 8 per cent. in one year. He skirted the fact that this Government and their predecessor have increased the number of higher education places by 15 per cent. He never once laid emphasis on quality, which, in our view, is the key essential of higher education. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will reject the motion and will support the amendment.

Mr. Clement Freud: I should like to begin by commending the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) on selecting this subject. I commend him the more because had he not done so, on our Supply Day on Thursday we should have selected the same subject.
One complaint about the Green Paper involves the astonishing and archaic procedure that we still pursue in the House. The Green Paper, which was promised many years ago came to us at 3.15 one afternoon, was then the subject of questions to the Secretary of State at 3.30, by which time no one had a proper chance of reading it or realising its implications.
I think that it is right to say that after one looks at the Labour motion, with which we basically agree, even if we would not pursue the inelegance of its language, one cannot help being appalled by the humbug of the Tory response. There are no proposals. There is nothing to make higher education more effective. Let me remind the House of what I said when I first read it. The first major weakness is
to believe that anything worth preserving can be measured and that anything not susceptible to quantification is thus expendable. The second is to accept that the demographic decline condemns us to a decline in the supply of graduates.
I believe that there is a particular flaw in the Green Paper, exemplified in the Secretary of State's motion, when he says:
higher education is better managed and more attuned to the needs of the economy".
There is a considerable paradox in that the right hon. Gentleman recognises the need for skilled manpower, but does not acknowledge the implications for higher education. The Green Paper states:
unless the country's economic performance improves, we shall be even less able than now to afford many of the things that we value most".
Surely that is the reverse of the truth. Unless we invest, our economic performance will not improve.
Annexe B gives figures for the social rate of return on investing in a place of higher education as between 5 per cent. and 7 per cent. Such a return is similar to that which one gets on Government stock. Therefore, it is presumably


respectable investment in the eyes of the Government, considerably better than the average investment in nationalised industry, very much better as well as a substantially better gamble than De Lorean or Lear Fan. One would expect such an analysis to result in positive action—but all there is is a £43 million investment in "the switch", to create 4,000 reluctant engineers—if we can find them, and The Guardian is highly doubtful about whether we shall be able to do so.
Rather than using the opportunity of the falling 18-year-old population to promote non-traditionals and continuing education, this is being used as an excuse for contraction and cost cutting. Look where one will in the Green Paper, one does not find what one is looking for.
We would have liked something done about the 21-hour rule—that legislation for despair and wasted opportune-ity. People who study when they are unemployed, one would have supposed, are most dear to the Prime Minister in that they have got on their bikes, yet nothing is being done for them, and the 21-hour rule stays.
The Open university is a most cost-effective source of academic and vocational excellence, yet in paragraph 3.12 the Green Paper contains the plumb dishonest remark:
In the case of the Open University, the level of fees is closely related to the amount of grant made available by the Government, but the decision on the fee nevertheless rests finally with the University.
It rests finally with the university, which has no money to do anything about it or to get more students.
Many hon. Members on all sides of the House feel passionately about overseas students. They see this as a marvellous investment in mankind as well as something that we owe the former Commonwealth and Third world. The Times Higher Education Supplement sums it up succinctly:
there is a section compounded of humbug and hypocrisy on overseas students which one can only hope will escape the notice of foreign critics".
As for embracing the new Robbins principle, the Green Paper states:
courses of higher education should be available to all those who can benefit from them and who wish to do so. So long as taxpayers substantially finance higher education, however, the benefit has to be sufficient to justify the cost. The intellectual competence, motivation and maturity of the student should be consistent with the course, which must itself be of a standard appropriate to higher education.
That makes it more restrictive.
On planning, Jarratt blamed the Government for not giving universities information about their funding. Jarratt says that often the information came at the last moment, and made it impossible for the higher education sectors to plan in advance. However, this discussion document says:
The UGC, the NAB and most recently the Jarratt report have argued that the absence of a longer funding horizon inhibits necessary planning. The Government accepts that it should give the best indications of longer term policies for higher education that it can. But planning also requires that institutions should manage their commitments and the funds available to them so as to be able to pursue their objectives effectively in circumstances of change and some inevitable uncertainty.
Therefore, it shuffles off the problem.
If pushed to find something kind to say, one would welcome the modest experiment in two-year degree courses. That ought to be looked at with care. I am also sure that the review of the UGC is welcomed everywhere. But to whom did the Department of Education and Science listen? On staffing, the UGC
wanted at least 900 new appointments per year".
The NAB
saw scope for tighter staffing, moving towards a staff/ student ratio of 12:1".
Although we have a Green Paper, there is nothing green about it, in that it does not discuss anything. It simply holds out no hope for anyone. The Times Higher Education Supplement carried an article entitled "Did the Government Listen?". For anyone reading much of that excellent article, the answer was monosyllabic — they did not.
We have an X factor and a Y factor. The X factor is probably realistic, but the Y factor is simply the contention that in a changing world nothing will change in the number or composition of entrants. We would all reject the Y factor.
Instead of factors we need commitments. There should be a commitment to level funding, not least as the Government's earnest of the value of higher education. There should be a commitment to set targets for participation and to work towards them, rather than projections which never materialise and whose assump-tions are dubious.
We need a commitment to use higher education to revamp the economy — as an access to national employment opportunities. If local markets collapse, higher education is the entry to the national market, and without higher education those workers would be abandoned.
I recognise that economic needs will cease to be met by traditional three-year intensive courses, so we should be planning for more and shorter courses, such as a short, sharp educational blast perhaps after five years in a job which may not be entirely suitable.
There should be a rethinking of the 21-hour rule. We should recognise the need to distinguish genuine from fraudulent claimants, but if the claimant is willing to give up a part-time course, it is likely that he will give up a full-time course.
Above all, perhaps, there should be a commitment to deploy flexibility in the skills of graduates. Instead of giving up arts students as lost sheep, let us make them all numerate and keyboard literate.
If higher education can play a positive part in making the British economy perform better, why not give more young men and women the opportunity to benefit? I and my hon. Friends will support the Labour motion, and we urge the House to do likewise.

Mr. Michael Shersby: I must first declare an interest as I am a member of the court of Brunel university which is situated in my constituency.
The Green Paper is of great concern and importance, not only to that leading technological university but also to higher education in general. As it covers a very wide area, I shall confine my remarks mainly to its effect on the technological universities. That is the area in which I am specially, but not exclusively, interested.
I agree with the Government that it is vital for higher education to contribute more effectively to the performance of the economy. I share my right hon. Friend's view that unless the country's economic performance improves, we shall be less able to afford many of the things that we value most—as the Green Paper put it:
including education for pleasure and general culture and the finance of scholarship and research as an end in itself".
How can this be achieved? The Green Paper stresses the importance of the initiative announced in March to increase the number of places in engineering and other shortage subjects. That amounted to £43 million over the next three years to increase the number of graduates, and postgraduates particularly, in electronic engineering, applied physics, materials science and computer science. Why has a university such as Brunei, which leads the country in these sciences, not yet been allocated one of the additional 4,000 places?
As I understand it, the intake to selected courses has reflected the value to industry and the degree of industrial commitment secured. Will my right hon. Friend tell the House a little more about how the value to industry is assessed? That leads me to ask what steps he and his colleagues can take to match the requirements of the traditional British industries, which in the past have provided a great deal of employment — the so-called heavy or metal-bashing industries—with the ability of the technological universities to produce the graduates to enable the industries to survive, expand and prosper. Surely industry must say clearly what it needs, and the universities must provide the graduates.
Why is it that in half a dozen areas of technology, which I could mention, the expertise which makes our universities world famous is now being deployed by foreign manufacturers who export their products to Britain, or the industries which should benefit from it are in decline or defunct?
Belfast university is world famous for its expertise in the small internal combustion engine, but is it being used to build Britain's motor cycles and motor car industry, or to assist foreign manufacturers who export their products to Britain?
I am told that Loughborough university is a leader for the textile industry. How much of its expertise is used to improve our textile industry? Brunei university is a leader in ship's strength and offshore construction, but why is it that Korea and Japan are the major shipbuilders, and offshore construction takes place mainly abroad? Where are the industrial scholarships to support those areas? We must concentrate on that.
I am not an expert in ships’ strength, but many people at the universities with which I am familiar are. At Brunei there are fee-paying Chinese, Japanese and Turkish students who are anxious to obtain the best expertise in Britain and all that it has to offer. I wonder whether British Shipbuilders takes the same keen interest, and what the extent of its sponsorship is. It may be already satisfactory, but if we are looking for industrial sponsorship in and support of the technological universities, more must be done.
Why does Britain have to import steel? I believe that we must even import steel to build our submarines. Is our steel not of the right quality? Does British Steel put cash into the metallurgy departments of the British technological universities to ensure that it gets the graduates that it needs for the future? I hope so, because I have a high regard for British Steel and its recent achievements. Can my right hon. Friend say how the requirements of the steel industry, for example, are made known to the universities, how we get the follow-through and the funding, and how we ensure that the universities provide the sort of graduates that such an industry needs?
Paragraph 1.6 of the Green Paper discusses the importance of developing links wih industry and commerce, and of industrial contracts. That is important, but the House knows that research costs about 10 times less than development. Consequently, it is important for universities to resist the temptation to go for development too soon and to remember that research is the primary consideration.
I am glad that the Green Paper refers to the well-established principle of sandwich education My experience of seeing it in action has demonstrated that it can enable small technical universities to vie with our most famous and historic universities. If the House were to judge its success, hon. Members may well ask how it is that the last of the colleges of advanced technology vie with, for example, Cambridge. The answer is the success of the sandwich course.
I now come to the important question of future resources for higher education. A 2 per cent. cut over three years means less cash in real terms. Does that include pay settlements? Are they to be settled by the Government or, as in the past, on the basis of agreement with the unions?
If, as I assume, it is the latter, an additional £500,000 a year may have to come from the funds of the small technological universities. That worries me. In addition to the effects on graduates and academic staff it could mean fewer jobs. As the academics have tenure, it could mean fewer lab technicians and supporting staff, which is also worrying.
I also worry about the vexed question of academic tenure. I know that the Government intend to introduce legislation to limit it. Can my right hon. Friend say whether they also intend to introduce Government-funded compensation schemes for those with tenure who may decide to leave in future or who may leave as a result of the changes foreshadowed in the Green Paper?

Sir Keith Joseph: I wish to clarify that point before it becomes widely spread and misunderstood. The Government's proposal to legislate to remove tenure is for future contracts, not for those whose contracts already give them tenure.

Mr. Shersby: I understand that, and it is clear that that is the case from the Green Paper. However, I was thinking of those who already have tenure but who may suffer if they decide to leave in the future, and I was wondering whether the Government were considering a compensation scheme for them.
I now turn to the adjustment in higher education, to which paragraph 1.13 refers, and which could lead to a closing or merging of some institutions of higher education during the next 10 years. What will be the criteria for closures or mergers? Will they be based on size, on numbers or on a judgment by the Secretary of State of the day whether a particular university is contributing adequately to
the improvement of the performance of the economy"?
One sometimes gets the impression that the Department of Education and Science and the University Grants Committee have different assumptions and make different statements. Through the Green Paper, the DES makes many statements that are good for the technological universities, but the UGC administers the resources. How then are the choices to be made? Brunei university, for example, makes money by turning out the right product in terms of its graduates, but the system throws all


universities into the same pool and considers them together, although there are enormous variations in character and what they produce. Does a technological university follow the DES and what it says, or the UGC? That presents a difficulty, because the UGC is the paymaster.

Dr. Keith Hampson: My hon. Friend keeps referring to universities in this context. I remind him that the Green Paper talks of some institutions of higher education, and does not say that some universities will have to close or merge. Will he press our right hon. Friend to make the matter absolutely clear, and ascertain whether our right hon. Friend is thinking about the future of colleges of higher education rather than the closure of universities?

Mr. Shersby: I am sure that our right hon. Friend has taken account of that point and that he will enlighten the House on it when he replies.
I trust that the question of closures or mergers is unthinkable for the technological universities that are producing good graduates and meeting the needs of industry. Will my right hon. Friend think about the example which is being set by the French, who are planning greatly to multiply the more technological universities, such as that at Compiégne, which is well known? How does one use the same yardstick, for example, for Edinburgh and for a university such as Brunel, when the two institutions are different in character but are both fine universities? Do we need a different yardstick for technological universities?
I welcome the paragraph in the Green Paper about the arts. I am glad that the Government are convinced of the importance of providing adequately for the arts. That is to be greatly welcomed. The arts contribute valuably to our society, and the events of the past week in Brussels demonstrate only too clearly how necessary and valuable it is for us to have higher education which helps to produce a decent and civilised society.
I consider this to be a thought-provoking Green Paper which, despite its shortcomings, poses many of the real questions that have to be faced in higher education in the next decade. It also contains some solid, good horse sense. The Government have to reconcile efficiency in the use of resources with improvement in the quality of higher education, while at the same time assuring the future of the universities and those who work in them. I want to see increased private funding of research and good use of public funds. I want to see dedicated members of the teaching staff receiving proper financial rewards for their work. The future of our young people is in their hands.

Dr. Jeremy Bray: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Shersby: No, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me. I am just coining to the end of my speech.
The teaching staff must feel that the country has confidence in them, and they have a crucial role to play in advancing the national interest. I want to see the best brains available to higher education. I believe that that can be achieved by a combination of proper rewards, based on merit, coupled with the efficient use of public funds and the encouragement and sponsorship of the private sector.

Mr. Sean Hughes: The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) referred to the events in Brussels last week. Many people may consider that in the midst of our post-mortems on that disaster, and the day after the deep controversy over the Green Paper on social services, a debate on higher education is somewhat less urgent, but it is part and parcel of the same thing. It is about the sort of society that we wish to see developed, and it is also about whether we are serious in wishing to eradicate the abuses to which we can point today.
What we saw on the terraces in Brussels—admittedly in a more concentrated and brutal form—was the result of a society which is breaking down in various parts of the land. That is relevant to the debate. When whole areas of the country and whole sections of the population are written off with their potential unfulfilled, the price that we pay—and will pay in the future—is a heavy one.
References have already been made — and will no doubt be made throughout the debate—to the principle enunciated in the Robbins report. I believe that the way that the principle was translated into practice was not good enough. The fact that the recent Green Paper on higher education goes back even on that practice must not allow us to start applauding our present system of higher education as some sort of ideal, because it is far from it. The Secretary of State was forced by some of my hon. Friends to refer to access. It is apparently inappropriate in our present system for the vast majority of our people to experience higher education. The fact that that has always been so is no defence. The fact that our education system is so constructed as to produce that gross imbalance is no excuse.
Robbins outlined five goals for higher education, the fifth of which was the transmission of a common culture and common standards of citizenship — apparently something that the Secretary of State would support. That has never been achieved. Indeed, I would argue that today we are as far away from its realisation as we were 20 years ago.
Therefore, the first fact that we must accept is that our education system is inherently privileged, and the worst manifestation of that privilege is in higher education. In the Robbins report it was demonstrated that, of children born in 1940–41, 33 per cent. of those with parents in higher professional occupations went to university, while only 1 per cent. of those with semi-skilled or unskilled parets went to university. In the meantime, we may have changed the social categories but, according to the UCCA report in 1983, 23·5 per cent. of those with parents in the professions and 48·4 per cent. of those with parents in what were termed intermediate occupations went to university, while still only 1·1 per cent. of those whoe parents were unskilled went to university.
Where are the minority concentrated? Inevitably, they are concentrated in the most deprived areas of the country, those with the worst environment, the worst housing and the worst schools. I simply do not accept that there is some immutable law of nature which has decreed that it is inappropriate for people in areas such as my constituency to go on to higher education.
I will give the House one example of the regional variation. Less than 9 per cent. of 18 and 19-year-olds in the county of Merseyside entered university in 1983–84 compared with more than 14 per cent. in counties such as


Surrey. But even that does not tell the whole story, for within a county such as Merseyside there are gross disparities. In the more prosperous Wirral, 14·4 per cent. of the 18 and 19-year-olds entered university in 1983–84, while in devastated Knowsley only 4·4 per cent. entered university. That is the reality that the Green Paper ignores.
In a BBC radio interview, the Prime Minister described her dream of a society without class distinction. She said:
I do not care what people's background is, where they come from. I want them to have the same opportunities.
The Government have a funny way of going about it. It was the late Tony Crosland who said:
the closest correlation in England so far as accent, social manners and style of life are concerned is with education. This interacting triad at the top of the social scale of education, style of life and occupational status is unquestionably a more important source of social inequality than income.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: The hon. Gentleman is making a very interesting criticism of the education system of the past, particularly higher education, and there may be a lot of truth in what he says. But will he accept that he is therefore making the case for the Government, as we are trying to bring about change and improvement? Does he accept that the Opposition are trying to defend the status quo?

Mr. Hughes: Obviously the hon. Gentleman missed my introductory comments, when I said that I did not accept that the present position was good enough, and by implication I wanted to improve it. My argument is that the Green Paper will exacerbate the situation, far from making it better.
If Crosland was correct—I believe that he was—we have to expose the hypocrisy of those who say that we have a common culture and then deny the majority the opportunity to develop their cultural appreciation.
If the Prime Minister was serious in what she said, the Green Paper on higher education, in the form it has taken, would not have seen the light of day, because the Government have effectively declared their intention to do nothing to offset the gross imbalance of intake into higher education. Indeed, the Government are to compound the felony. Instead of the Robbins principle that a place at college or university should be available for those able to benefit from it — even though in reality that did not happen — the Government have added that the benefit has to be sufficient to justify the cost, as my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) emphasised.
As the 20th century draws to an end, after a decade of expanding educational development, the Government should now be addressing themselves to making some radical changes to benefit the community as a whole, rather than the privileged, and the proposals in the Green Paper will cut back most on those who are already most deprived. The Green Paper on higher education displays once again the short-term nature of Government policies, and it must be considered alongside the "Better Schools" White Paper and that on training for jobs. All of them are characterised by an appalling ignorance of what life is really like in the most deprived parts of this country. The Green Paper is a very timid document which fails to recognise the enormity of the problem. It exposes the Prime Minister's contemplations of a classless society as being no more than that—contemplations. Therefore, I urge Conservative Members who recognise that fact to join us in the Lobby and to support the motion.

Dr. Brian Mawhinney: I, too, should start by declaring an interest, not only as one who was trained in our university system but as one who has spent most of his working life as an academic staff member of universities, mainly in this country. I am still a member of the board of studies of radiation biology of the university of London. This week my son started his A-levels in the hope of attending university next autumn.
I give two welcomes to the Green Paper. I welcome also the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. I welcome his reaffirmation of the commitment of our party and our Government to the importance of universities both for the pursuit of pure knowledge, scholarship and training as well as for the application of that knowledge and the excellence of those who have been trained. Perhaps it needs to be explicitly said in a debate such as this that while we debate the future of our univerity system—there are legitimate differences of view about its future — we ought not to blind ourselves to the fact that this country has one of the best university systems in the world, a fact of which we ought to be proud. It stems in large part from the contribution that academic teachers, researchers and ancillary staff have made to that system over many decades. I say that as somebody who throughout his university career was a member of the Association of University Teachers and who is now a life-long member of the association.
It is important to talk about change, and the insecurity that change brings, against a positive background. We have to recognise that most of those who work in universities are good at their jobs and are dedicated workers.
My second welcome relates not just to the relative increase in numbers which will be available in the next decade because, as my right hon. Friend has pointed out, the projected decrease in places is much less than the projected decrease of those who are deemed to be eligible. I welcome also the greater flexibility in the admissions policy of universities which is proposed. Over the years, but particularly in recent years, there has been an acceleration in the O-level and A-level standards required of university entrants, yet most of us know that there is very little, if any, correlation between a pupil's performance in O-level and A-level examinations and his subsequent performance at university. I say that as somebody who has published academic papers on this subject, based on the findings of my own medical school. Therefore, the Green Paper's commitment to greater flexibility in university entrance requirements than simply ever-increasing O-level and A-level standards is to be welcomed.
I wish to concentrate upon one aspect of university life —management and decision-making. Academic departments were established originally as a vehicle for teaching and also as a means for protecting academic standards. In a bygone era it was necessary for professors to exercise a degree of autocracy in order not just to protect their departments but to protect their subjects. Academic tenure grew up in this context. Universities are being forced to reconsider their structure. For many of them it is a difficult process. There is no precedent for it. They have not been required by change over the years to develop management and decision-making systems which are responsive to the needs of a changing world. During the last few years I have


sat on senior committees within universities which have sought to balance the budget. Our systems are somewhat archaic. Time is not on the side of universities which are unwilling to change their systems. My right hon. Friend will need to provide not financial but advisory help to universities to help them through this difficult transitional period.
My right hon. Friend knows that teaching and research tend for the most part to be centred in academic departments. That is important from a teaching point of view, not least because it safeguards the standards of the subjects being taught in those departments. However, one of the consequences is that those who are in teaching departments are expected to carry out their research within those departments. In many cases there is a fragmentation of research endeavour. This is not a good use of resources. Too many people in our universities are carrying out what is almost solitary research. If resources are limited—we all agree that they are limited, wherever the limit may be drawn — we have to ask ourselves how best we can generate useful research, using the money that is available. Because of the nature of research one cannot say that a piece of work should not be done, because it might result in something that will be useful. One has to talk about probabilities.
When considering his response to the Green Paper I hope that my right hon. Friend will ask himself whether it is still sensible for academic members of staff to be assigned to one single department which covers both teaching and research, or whether they should be assigned to one department for teaching and become a different configuration of people for the purpose of carrying out research.
In that context it is important for universities to understand better than they do now the importance of good teaching. Too much emphasis is still placed in our universities upon research papers which have already been written and published. Too many of my erstwhile colleagues—I refer not to the medical school but to the whole profession—regard students as people who get in the way of a good day's research. That attitude must change not only for the sake of the universities and students, but, as my right hon. Friend has pointed out, for the sake of the country. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State agrees with my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) who said that good decision making in universities means that they must be given as much information as possible as early as possible. I have had to practise that art in recent years. Therefore I know that it is difficult to make coherent, long-term planning decisions when one does not know what the framework will be. I am not being critical of my Government any more than I am being critical of the previous Government under which I had to operate in the same circumstances.
Finally, I welcome the review of the role of the University Grants Committee. It is overdue. There is a feeling among academics in particular that the role of the UGC has changed in recent years. It needs to be thought through again and redefined. However, I am sorry that the research councils are not to be included in that review. I say that as a person who served on the Medical Research Council for three years, while a Member of the House.
Research councils and the UGC are now inextricably bound together. The administration of the research councils is very powerful. Sometimes, questions need to be raised about the balance that is struck in them between pursuing fundamental research that is of itself important and research into problems that are of national concern but that are not always treated with the respect that they deserve within the councils.
Change is seldom a comfortable or pleasant experience. If we are to have change— my right hon. Friend is right to say that we must have it—it needs to be carried out with support not only from the Government but from the House for the university structure and for the teaching staff who are being required to change within it.
Change there needs to be, not least in the universities’ ability to be more flexible in the changing world in which they operate and for which they are training their undergraduates. The Green Paper rightly focuses our attention on that change. I see an important part of that change being a much more detailed review of the existing decision-making processes within universities. I hope that my right hon. Friend will give thought to that as he considers the responses to the Green Paper.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: The arrangements for higher education in Scotland are deeply unsatisfactory, and I am sorry to say that the Green Paper does not help to resolve the Scottish dilemma. Universities in Scotland, unlike the central institutions that are under the control of the Secretary of State for Scotland, are under the charge of the Secretary of State for Education and Science and, through him, the UGC. None of the Ministers in the Department of Education and Science is conversant with the Scottish educational system. It is interesting that the Minister responsible for education in the Scottish Office, who is present, is not to wind up, even though he has a distinct interest in the higher education system in my country.
The UGC circular of November 1983 was unhappy in its intentions when it gave universities a choice between self-multilation or starvation of resources. There is something even more offensive in it. Paragraph 6 says:
Parts of this letter refer primarily to the situation in England and Wales. We would ask readers concerned with the different systems in Scotland and Northern Ireland to make the appropriate adjustments.
That is the sort of thing that those of us who are Scottish lawyers object to when the legal system of Scotland is amended as if it were an appendage to the English system. It does not work, and it causes distortion in the system.
The contempt that was first apparent in the UGC circular is extended by the Green Paper, which, although it is aware of the continuing review of the Scottish Tertiary Education Advisory Council, is unwilling to await the report. It directs that the council should follow the Green Paper. The Green Paper purports to deal with Scottish higher education, but its Scottish content is limited to some five paragraphs. Lip service is paid to the Scottish system and, to paraphrase the late Henry Ford, the Government obviously take the view that Scotland can have any kind of educational policy that it wishes so long as it is of English origin.
The Secretary of State is so notably interested in the Scottish education system that he has now left the Chamber. I point out to him that the Green Paper is deeply


offensive to anyone interested in education. It is also full of alarming statements. In paragraph 1.2, it asserts correctly—the Secretary of State has just admitted that — that the economic performance of the United Kingdom has been disappointing, and it then goes on to call for more technologists and engineers.
I agree that, for the functioning of a modern economy, we need experts in technology and the sciences to be available when required. However, it is not true that simply because one trains these people the economy will grow. In the 1950s, the university of Glasgow found that 80 per cent. of its technical graduates emigrated either to other parts of the United Kingdom or abroad. Therefore, while Scotland trained these people, its economy did not benefit because there were no jobs for the graduates. The Government should take on board the point that although there are advantages to the economy in training technologists, equally without an expanding economy the opportunities to use those experts will not be available.
Today I received an answer from the Department of Employment which showed that in the period between 1974–84, unemployment in the United Kingdom went up by 456 per cent., while in the European community countries it went up by 310 per cent. and in the OECD countries by 178 per cent. That underlines what has been said in the debate.
Strangely enough, the Green Paper is entitled, "The Development of Higher Education into the 1990s", but as we have heard, over the next 10 years it is reckoned that there may be cuts in funding of 2 per cent. a year. That is an impossible burden to place on higher education institutions. It was interesting that, although the Labour party spokesman skated round it, he did not give an explicit assurance that the Labour party in Government would restore the previous level of funding for higher education. In that, he was echoing the remarks made by the leader of the Labour party a few years ago when he was spokesman on education matters.
The committee of vice-chancellors and principals made it clear in the document that it sent me that it has found that business cannot make up the difference in funding for core education and research that is not necessarily pertinent to its business affairs. The Government are ambivalent about where they are going with the funding of universities. Will they keep to the system that we have had in the United Kingdom or are they trying to bring in the American system in which far greater aid is available from the business sector?
Leaving aside the fact that, until recently, the business sector has been in considerable cash difficulties, we should point out that if the Government wish to encourage private donations or business donations to the universities and central institutions, they must give tax concessions equivalent to those available in other countries. I prefer funding to come directly from central Government rather than to be parcelled out in that manner.
It is difficult for universities and institutions—here I declare an interest as the rector of the university of Dundee and a member of the court in that capacity—to finance replacement of equipment. The university tries to do this for its main sectors of vocational and technological education. For the university to make good and bring up to date the equipment is virtually impossible on the funding currently provided by the UGC.
Even in revenue matters such as the funding of the library, although the university had just been granted

considerable funds for a new library, it is finding difficulty in meeting the costs of stocking the library with publications. The prices of periodicals have increased substantially, well above the rate of inflation in recent years, yet the finance being made available for them has not. The university is now considering what periodicals ought to be cut out as a consequence of the cuts that have been made.
There is also the question of non-replacement when vacancies occur. That university like others is now having to consider the 2 per cent. cut which it is expecting in the first financial year. When a vacancy arose on the departure of a professor in the department of mechanical engineering —incidentally, one of the areas that are supposed to be expanded—the first response of the university was to considering closing the department to save money, whereas normally the intention would have been to strengthen it because students wish to get in to study engineering. I do not share the pessimism which was expressed recently in that regard.
The hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) made a very good point when he spoke of the problems that the universities face by having to refuse applicants on the basis of their higher grade examination qualifications because of shortage of places so that they go for those with the best academic performance at school. That does not necessarily produce the best graduates. Even disallowing the experience of the hon. Gentleman, who has such expertise in the matter, it prevents the entry of students who in my day would just have walked into university on certain qualifications and could have produced a good honours degree. They no longer get the opportunity of entry because they are deprived of access by their peer group.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): Will the hon. Gentleman concede that in Scotland not only is the total number of students in higher education at a record level but so is the age participation ratio?

Mr. Wilson: I am willing to concede that the central institutions play a part in that. Many students prefer to go to central institutions because they give a good education, but some who would have preferred to go to university no longer get in. Indeed, even though the numbers have increased, there is the effect, particularly in the last few years in which the birth rate has been so substantial and the bulge has come through, that some have failed to get into educational establishments altogether. I think that the Minister will agree that that is highly undesirable.
Next there is a difficulty in relation to teaching, and again I congratulate the hon. Member for Peterborough on his observations. If staff ratios worsen and it becomes increasingly necessary for staff to produce research papers in order to justify their existence, the amount of effort and attention that goes to teaching may decline. When I was a student at university, I took the view that the universities were there primarily for teaching and not for the purpose of research. Since then, I have had to amend my views a little in that respect. However, I think that the stage has been reached where research has become much more important to the universities than is the teaching of students.
With respect to numbers and the exchange that I had with the Minister with responsibility for Scottish


education, I received information the other day that the Edinburgh group of the Royal Statistical Society was told on 14 May that major changes are to be made to the Scottish Education Department's statistical model which will likely show higher estimates of demand. It has not been possible for me to table a question to flush out exactly what those changes will be, but I hope that the Secretary of State in summing up may be able, from information supplied by his hon. Friend, to tell the House what changes in projection of demand there will be as a consequence of that review.
In summary, Scotland generally speaking has no confidence now in the UGC. In relation to the closure of the pharmacy department at the Heriot-Watt university, it proved itself ignorant and uncaring in relation to Scottish needs. The whole education system in Scotland is different. It cannot be governed in the same way as the English system. It requires different solutions. We know that the report of the Scottish Tertiary Education Advisory Council—STEAC — is due. The Green Paper is in a sense in limbo in relation to what will happen to Scotland thereafter.
I should like to urge on the Secretary of State and the Minister with responsibility for Scottish education the need to set up two bodies in Scotland — first, an independent UGC with proper interfacing with the research councils; and secondly, a body which is representative of the universities, the central institutions and all parts of higher education, with these bodies being responsible to the Scottish Office which, it is hoped, understands the whole pattern of education in Scotland. Until that is done, we will have disparate control, and higher education in Scotland will remain what it has been for the last few years, a decapitated rump without an ability to plan for itself the future which will obviously be difficult in view of the funding restrictions that the Government are predicting.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): The Front Bench spokesman hopes to catch my eye at half past 9. Most speeches have been commendably brief, but I hope that those of other hon. Members will be even briefer.

Mrs. Angela Rumbold: My credentials for participating in the debate differ slightly perhaps from those of other hon. Members since I have been a governor of one of 29 polytechnics, and, I think, can claim to be one of the founder members of the National Advisory Body. That is the basis on which I wish to declare my interest.
I welcome this opportunity — although not the Opposition motion—to discuss the Green Paper on the development of higher education. It brings to all hon. Members a welcome opportunity to put their points of view.
I spent some time reading the paper carefully. I realise that it contains too much for comment on each section. I should therefore like to confine myself to three areas. The first, and most important in my view, relates to the second section of the paper which develops the thinking on the place of higher education in the economy and subject balance in our future. Although later in the paper there is

mention of what has happened to mankind in the last few decades, I think that insufficient emphasis is placed on the phenomenon that now faces us. It seems to me that progress defined as the increase in the ability to replace new techniques by new machinery and advanced scientific application to almost every aspect of our daily lives has had a traumatic effect on how the individual fits into our society. Let me explain that.
During the past 50 years medicine has advanced dramatically so that life is, happily, extended well beyond the expectations of the majority, and certainly for the less well off matched against their counterparts of 100 years ago. Similarly, our everyday life is wholly different. Machinery has been developed that transports us long distances in a relatively short time. It has changed the whole domestic scene, bringing up women from the slower processes of home making and altering for both men and women the management of leisure.
At work, technology has made redundant many of the time-honoured skills and the general pace of life demands constant change and adaptability by the human being.
It will no doubt be said that society has experienced all those changes in the past, and indeed it has, but I am not certain that the change has been so rapid that it spans only half the life expectancy of men and women so that each person can see evolution speeded up at a rate as yet unknown.
The reason why I have spent these few moments on that is that I believe in looking at the future of higher education, and it is imperative that that factor is taken into account. Thus the whole theme of production of qualified manpower should be geared to an understanding that a qualification at 21 may be quite useless at 40.
The heavy reliance placed upon higher education in the Green Paper as a basis for the innovator and the entrepreneur strikes me as a little false. Although I can understand that many good graduates may well turn out to have these skills, it is not a prerequisite of the entrepreneur that he should have first been through the educational hierarchical route. Furthermore, emphasis is placed also on the employer wanting graduates with special skills relating to the expertise of industry and commerce. I believe that that is not necessarily always the case. Most employers look for manpower that is capable of being trained and adapted to the special needs of the individual or company concerned. That is something that we should think about as a philosophical point.
I come now to those who enter higher education and express concern at the lack of good teachers in both mathematics and sciences. That is undoubtedly true, and it is even more true that girls are more quickly disposed to abandon mathematics and science earlier than boys. Two matters need to be stated now. Children lose motivation for subjects at a much earlier stage than is generally recognised. I guess that between the ages of seven and eight it is possible to switch a young child off both mathematics and science. The importance of good teaching of those subjects needs to be considered well before secondary school begins.
Secondly, while the objective of a broad curriculum is highly desirable, we must begin to accept that if we are seriously looking for a body of highly skilled academics for the 1990s, we must start some process of weeding out the bright children throughout the spectrum of our school system, rather than allowing so many potentially bright


children to remain undiscovered. The hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. Hughes) highlighted that point rather well.
It is hardly surprising that we cannot attract enlightened teachers into schools where the discipline is non-existent and the facility for seeing the fruits of one's teaching through the successes of one's pupils is constantly denied, especially when other factors such as pay and the general esteem of society for teachers are at their lowest ebb.
While words that suggest that the country needs more able scientists, more engineers, technologists and employers should be the ones to inspire the youngsters, I frankly think that we are not looking at the problem with any real hope of solving it. That hope lies in the abandonment of half-witted political dogma and the realisation that the raw material exists but needs to be discovered early enough and then cultivated in the right atmosphere much more ruthlessly than this country has acknowledged for the past 30 years. If we grab that nettle, perhaps some employers in future will show an interest in the processes of our schools and universities.
Following through my theory that education will have to respond to change at least twice for individuals during their lifetimes, the plans for the pursuit of mature education in the Green Paper and the career vocational study are much to be welcomed. In particular, like my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby), I am pleased to note that sandwich education is to be looked at once again. It has always appeared to me that the argument that it was not cost-effective was simply a management problem, not an education problem. I believe that educationally there are bound to be students who benefit enormously from that type of higher education course.
I also welcome the enthusiasm shown for distance learning. Undoubtedly it is one of the advances that we can encourage with modern technology. It is relatively cheap as a method of updating, reproducing and overhauling the knowledge that students have acquired throughout their working lives.
The last area of interest that I single out for mention touches on the management of the institutions. Obviously, as my right hon. Friend said, the Government are taking note of the Jarratt report which has outlined proposals for change in the planning and management structures of universities. Rightly, the idea of stated objectives and structures to enable management decisions about allocation of resources has been outlined.
Speaking from quite a bit of experience in management on the other side of the binary line in local authority higher education institutions and, in particular the polytechnics, I observe that it is not before time. However, I stress that as with any other organisation the most important task for those who have the interest of managing public money and how it is spent, whether it be in schools, universities, polytechnics, or colleges of further education, is to ensure that the top management is of the highest calibre.
Vice-chancellors, polytechnic directors and heads of colleges need to be men and women with a range of academic and management skills that enable them to identify readily the needs of the institution. Whether it be on management of money or the planning of courses in conjunction with the rest of the country, it is their judgment that will affect the quality of staff and the final outcome of the student intake. With leadership of the highest order there should be coupled experience and a broad spectrum of people on the governing bodies who can

make decisions and judgments about quality and quantity and at the same time can be relied upon to exercise effective controls on both capital and revenue expenditure in the same way as a board of directors holds responsibility for the same areas in any business.
For the better health of all institutions at this level of higher education, I welcome the consideration of the present system of tenure. It seems to be an admirable idea to link tenure with other institutional experience. Men or women on loan from commerce and industry both here and abroad will enable much wider spectrums to be seen. Certainly it is high time that the younger men and women coming through the universities should be given the hope of promotion and an understanding that a breakthrough either in research or production will be recognised not merely by academic acclaim, important though that is, and not in any way decided, but by the possibility of sponsored professional chairs for the front runner to encourage others to follow.
Whatever be the broad thrust of the Green Paper, the simple message that I would add to it is that if the United Kingdom wishes to compete with the world in any respect it must recognise and encourage excellence in a way that has been positively discouraged for far too long, especially in our schools and universities, and all too often for entirely the wrong reasons. Let us remedy that error and perhaps the future will look much brighter and more positive to the youth of tomorrow.

Dr. John Marek: What I say will be concerned mainly with universities. Lest any of us on these Benches are accused of dwelling too much on universiy education, I stress that we are mindful that higher education consists of both sectors. Many of us want to see the binary system abolished, but that is another matter. Equally, it is not sufficient for the Secretary of State to say, after five or six years in office, that he is thinking about mature entry into higher education. Continuing education and adult education should have been dealt with many years ago, but again I have no time to talk at length on those important topics.
The debate has been very interesting. Conservative Members have introduced some useful points but they have been talking about the subject as from a distance, without knowing what was going on at ground level and what disillusion is being felt by teachers and researchers in higher education. [Interruption.] If Conservative Members raise their voices in amazement, they are not just ignorant: they are showing their ignorance. I do not want to accuse Conservative Members of being ignorant but such sedentary interventions only confirm what I suspect to be the case. It would be a great deal better—

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The Opposition do not give way to non-sedentary interventions.

Dr. Marek: If the hon. Lady wishes to intervene, I shall give way.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This only delays the speech that is being made and prevents other hon. Members from speaking.

Dr. Marek: This is an important matter because the Secretary of State has said that he needs to spend public money sensibly. It is difficult to take exception to that statement, but what does he mean by spending public


money sensibly? It has been said that we need to spend money so that industry can immediately take advantage of research. Hon. Members have asked where the money is to come from. That is another way of trying to cover up what is happening within the higher education sector.
Money must be found, because if it is not found for higher education and adequate research, this and the next generation may not pay for that failure but following generations will pay dearly. Some research is immediately applicable to industry. Other research may be applicable later. The hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) may have got near to the point but not many other Conservative Members did. We do not know whether some research will be applicable. Nevertheless, such research is highly valued by almost every other country and it should be valued by this country if we are to remain in the forefront as an industrial nation.
The Association of University Teachers sent me a copy of a letter from the Prime Minister dated 7 June 1983, just before polling day, when she was a candidate for Finchley. I dare say that other hon. Members had a copy of this letter.

Mr. Allan Rogers: It is not worth the paper that it is written on.

Dr. Marek: k: It may not be worth the paper that it is written on, but I shall quote it. It is addressed to Mr. Hennessy, who is a regional official of the AUT. Its title is:
Funding for the university sector in general and those institutions in the London area
The Prime Minister states:
After decades of expansion, there has been scope for the elimination of waste and more effective use of resources both in universities and in polytechnics and colleges. Given this fact, and the general need to contain public spending, the Government decided in 1981 that, (in addition to removing indiscriminate subsidies for overseas students)"—
how shortsighted that is. If Conservative Members looked at the graphs of overseas students in the United States, France and Germany and saw how they have increased, could they say that all those countries are wrong and that this country is the only one that is right? Not on their life. We are the only country that is wrong. We shall pay for that dearly when those students who should have been studying in this country order all their equipment and goods from other countries once they have graduated.
The letter continues:
spending on higher education over both sectors should be reduced by about 8 ½per cent. in real terms over three years.
The Prime Minister then says:
But the period of contraction is now nearing the end. In 1983/84, we are spending £2·75 billion on higher education; and the intention"—
I hope that hon. Members will listen to this clearly—
is to hold the level steady in real terms after 1984/85.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition called the Prime Minister a twister. I should like to ask the Secretary of State whether she is a twister. What has happened? Why is there a change? Why do we have the Green Paper when I have a letter, which is ostensibly a copy of a genuine article, that says:
the intention is to hold the level steady in real terms after 1984–85"?
What is happening? Can it be that the economy is not what the right hon. Lady thought in 1983 it would be? I would

not be surprised if that is so, because the more the Government cut, the more people are thrown on the dole, the less the Government have in taxation revenue and the more the Government have to cut. That has happened ever since the Conservative party took office.
If that is not the explanation, and the economy is buoyant, as the Chancellor tells us, why was that letter written in that form, saying that there would be constant funding after 1984–85? Why has the University Grants Committee written to the universities saying that they should budget for cuts of 2 per cent. until the end of the decade? I do not understand what is happening, and I should be grateful to the Secretary of State if he told us what is happening.
In point 2 of the letter, the Prime Minister referred to
increasing access to university courses for those living in the London area".
The tenor of her argument was that access for those students would be increased. I hope that the Government stand by their commitment. They have patently not stood by that commitment during the past two years. Many students who could have gone to universities in London and elsewhere have not been able to do so. They may have managed to get into courses elsewhere in higher education, but they have been denied access to the universities.
The Government have produced various figures showing that student numbers will decline. That prediction has been made not for just the next few years but for the next decade and a half. With what certainty do the Government think that they are right? It is possible that, in 10 years, there might be a higher take-up of adult education places. If so, the Government should budget and ensure that there is a provision for those future students.

Sir Keith Joseph: indicated assent.

Dr. Marek: The Secretary of State nods his head. I welcome that agreement. I hope that he will say something about this matter, because there is dismay throughout the higher education sector about the cuts that have taken place.
Instead of carrying out research and giving proper attention to teaching, many university teachers wonder whether they will be able to keep their jobs — and, indeed, whether there will be jobs in two or three years. There is much to be said for an interchange of academics and mobility between universities, but those jobs may be temporary and without security of tenure. What will the Government do about that?
Academics wonder, even if they do not move, whether they will keep their jobs. Their salaries have been eroded. I am not saying that their salaries are too high or are inadequate. In April 1979, the maximum salary of a university lecturer was 98·5 per cent. of the maximum salary of a principal in the Civil Service. By April 1984 that percentage had fallen to 87 per cent. I have not checked whether those figures are accurate. Civil servants are also not happy with their wage increases. The average earnings of university teachers have fallen by 36·5 per cent.
We cannot run a country with research and teaching in higher education, which is vital to our continuing prosperity if there is continual unhappiness about levels of salary, conditions of work, the moral benefits of having a job and the lack of pride in not having a job. I wish that


I could get that point across to the Government. We are creating this problem not just in higher education but throughout society.
Will the Government pursue a policy which, in two or three years, will cause those who work in higher education to take pride in their jobs and to say, "We are doing a good job, and we are happy with it."? At the moment, they have failed to do that. If they do not manage to do that, not this generation or the next one, but succeeding generations will pay dearly for the short-sighted policy set out in the Green Paper.

Mr. Robert Key: In a debate on such an important subject as higher education, we must not neglect historical or international perspectives. The roots of our education spring from our language, which continues to give us influence in the world, and from our culture which continues to make a considerable contribution to civilisation. Together, they produce the branches of education, arts, science and technology which we can give to the world. The education that we export to other countries either directly, or indirectly by accepting overseas students at our institutions of higher and further education, not only promotes our cultural influence, but creates markets overseas.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: And good will.

Mr. Key: Yes, and good will. Students familiar with British products and equipment, and with British ways of doing things, will become leaders and opinion-formers who will buy British and create jobs here.
There are at least three groups in British society that are outstandingly internationalist. The first are the exporters of the industrial and commercial community. The second is the cultural community, and the third is the academic community. They are all interrelated, and they all win friends for Britain. Indeed, British business men seeking to penetrate overseas markets have problems with the British Overseas Trade Board and the Export Credits Guarantee Department, because they are constantly helped less than their competitors inside and outside the European Community. While many exporters give fulsome praise to the work of embassies and consulates in their commercial support, they also pay tribute to the pro-British climate that has been created by British education, whether acquired in Britain or overseas, and by the work of the British Council.
There is much misunderstanding about the work of the British Council. Only 13 per cent. of its activities are concerned exclusively with the arts. Most of its work is about people, notably students, teaching and libraries, but also about official visitors to Britain. I should stress that it is not the English Council; it is the British Council, and it should include more activities, for instance, in Wales and Scotland.
Recently, the British Council's Government grant has been cut by more than 20 per cent. Consequently, English language teaching has been cut, British Council libraries have less money, and academic and youth exchanges have been reduced. But there is a plus factor. The British Council has increased its revenue considerably and has started some imaginative schemes for funding by sponsorship of English teaching. One example is the joint

project by the Cambridge local examinations syndicate and Suntory whisky for an English language institute in Japan, managed by the British Council.
The Green Paper acknowledges all that in its section on overseas students. The Government have decided that such students, welcome as they undoubtedly are, should not be subsidised by the British taxpayer. Instead, the Government are committed to a policy of targeted support that meets the needs of overseas countries.
Indeed, there has been a sea change in our contribution to international education in recent years. That is evident from the British Council's market surveys of overseas demand for, and perceptions of, British higher education, and its establishment of an education counselling service in three pilot centres in Malaysia, Hong Kong and Singapore. It is also evident in the new approach of the Overseas Development Administration. I have the honour to be one of the three parliamentary chairmen of the Council for Education in the Commonwealth, and I must: say that there has been alarm and despondency at the large reduction in overseas students in Britain, largely following the replacement of marginal costs by full-cost pricing, which has led to the significant salting away of money in some of our universities.
However, in discussing higher education with the Council for Education in the Commonwealth, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development explained how he is targeting his contribution towards encouraging a skilled, literate and environmentally aware work force in the recipient countries. His educational advisers are seeking new priorities and programmes overseas, with clear objectives and time limits that fit into national development programmes. That can only be an improvement.
We should acknowledge the considerable and largely unknown ways in which our higher education is promoted overseas and why it is so highly valued. The British Council and some universities operate the key English language teaching scheme. In countries where English is not usually spoken, such as Indonesia and Brazil, they operate the English for special purposes scheme. It is important because non-English speaking nations are rapidly becoming aware that English is essential for education in advanced science and technology.
Paid for by the Overseas Development Administration, London university recently organised a conference at Cumberland lodge, which brought together the education Ministers of eight African countries faced with rising demands for education and dwindling resources. The results will be published shortly in a book entitled "Education Priorities in Sub-Saharan Africa".
The Government support in-country training and third country training, where it is more convenient or appropriate to establish regional education centres such as the university of the West Indies or the university of the south Pacific, which are partly funded by the United Kingdom. For more than 25 years, the Commonwealth scholarship and fellowship plan has facilitated student mobility — it currently funds 800 students at British universities and medical schools.
The Pym package of 1983 led to an important increase in student numbers. The Department of Education and Science continues its scheme for research students and the British Council has its highly successful fellowships programme. There are now some 16,500 overseas students in Britain, 71 per cent. of them from Commonwealth


countries, but it is important to help more overseas students, especially from developing countries. That is why I am especially pleased about the fact that, in answer to my parliamentary question, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development was able to announce yesterday the introduction of a new scheme called the shared scholarship scheme. Up to 450 scholarships will be available over five years, funded jointly by the Government and universities and polytechnics that wish to participate. They will probably seek commercial sponsorship and partnership and a closer relationship with their local industrial and commercial communities.
The scheme is a start but, in the interests of higher education and the country, student mobility should increase. I hope that when Commonwealth education Ministers meet later this year during the UNESCO general conference, they will ask themselves whether they have achieved the objectives that they agreed on in their Nicosia communique of last July.
The Green Paper is a tough and realistic document born of the hard reality that the population of university entrance age will fall by more than one third in the next 12 years. No Government could afford to ignore that stark fact, so we should not get carried away in condemnation but should consider the positive proposals that have been presented for discussion in the Green Paper. It is not a short-sighted or defeatist policy, and I urge the House to support the amendment.

Mr. Stuart Randall: I have a college of further education, a college of higher education, and a university in my constituency. I am sceptical about the Green Paper. The consequences of cuts in 1980–81 and again in 1984–85 are serious for higher education. There have been numerous course cuts and place losses at the university in Hull.
I feel sorry for the young people who are affected. I vividly remember seeing the disappointment on the faces of 18-year-olds with A-levels at a school that I visited last year. When I had the privilege to go to university, entrance was simple compared with what those kids have to go through. It is disgraceful that top calibre people are being wasted. It is wrong that people should be treated in that way. It is no wonder that there is a "Why bother?" attitude among young people.
There are not enough qualified people in Britain. A recent report compared the number of qualified people in Japanese and German industries with the number in our industries. A tremendous gap must be filled particularly in the technological industries about which we hear so much.
I am worried by the staff cuts at the Hull college of higher education. The student-staff ratio is moving towards 12:1. That is being achieved by not replacing staff. That reduces the course options. The consequence is a loss of skills and an aging teacher population. The new blood and new degrees are not there to refresh our universities and colleges.
I talked to people connected with our colleges today before taking part in the debate. Morale has been affected by the cuts. The cuts create pressure for teaching at the expense of links with industry and consultancy work. That is serious. Morale is affected because the number of career opportunities for college staff is restricted.
Expenditure per student at the Hull college of higher education is falling. Although there was a general increase in the amount of money spent between 1980–81 and 1984–85, it has not kept pace with the increased number of students. That means serious cuts in support services such as career guidance and counselling, the milk round —which is costly in terms of man hours—links with employers and the general environment.
The Green Paper will not result in an improvement in higher education in Hull. I see it as an excuse for cutting expenditure. I referred earlier to students who had lost their opportunity. The cuts mean that future students will also lose their opportunity. 9.33 pm

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The Secretary of State received a poor reception for his Green Paper when he presented it to the House last month. The press also gave it a poor reception. Only The Sun came out in its defence. Tonight few hon. Members have given unqualified support for the Green Paper.
At times during his speech it was doubtful whether the right hon. Gentleman was in favour of his own Green Paper. Sometimes he talked more about the sections that had been cut out than about the contents of the Green Paper. He must admit that the Green Paper is a bad harbinger of doom and despair for higher education and for the economy. It discusses cuts and the general malaise in our economic climate into the 1990s. Surely the Government should at least be hoping that their monetarist policies will work.
The Green Paper is not only about cuts but about a total reversal of Governments strategy over the past 100 years. There has been almost a political consensus for 100 years that we should expand higher education and recognise the intrinsic worth of education and its importance for our economy. Now, suddenly, the Government are talking not about a few short-term cuts because of economic difficulties but about a long-term strategy of contraction in higher education. The fact that we should single out from the Green Paper is that total change of attitude.
There were cuts in the resources of the polytechnics and colleges of higher education right from the start in 1979. There were savage cuts in university funding in 1981. It seems difficult to take seriously the Government's claims that they want to put resources into science and technology when three of the science and technology universities suffered the biggest cuts. The people at Bradford, Salford and Aston are now asking, having had those savage cuts, whether they will have to take 2 per cent. cuts each year for the next three years.
We were told by the Government that those cuts were to get round the short-term economic problems. There is no talk in the Green Paper of hoping to restore those cuts. Now the UGC is talking about 2 per cent. cuts over the next three years, probably the next five years. The NAB is warning the Government that standards are falling in polytechnics and colleges of higher education because of the shortage of resources. Finally, on top of all that, the Government are talking about wanting to cut the numbers of students in universities by 14 per cent. in the 1990s, and cutting resources by that amount. That is the most disturbing thing. It might be difficult to keep up the number of students, but we should pump in the resources to make sure that we can attract more students. It may well


be that developing more science courses will be more expensive, but we should be talking about maintaining level funding for those institutions into the 1990s.

Mr. Richard Tracey: I ask the hon. Gentleman to pause for a moment over the age participation rate. Does he deny that the previous Labour Government cut it from 13·6 per cent, to 12·6 per cent? Does he further deny that now the Conservative Government have raised it above the target set by Robbins and are aiming for 15·5 per cent. by 1999?

Mr. Bennett: If the hon. Gentleman wants to talk about the age participation rate, the most useful thing to do is to look back to the target that the Prime Minister set in 1972. She talked about a participation rate of 22 per cent. as the aim. I accept that there have been mistakes and disappointments in terms of short-term cuts, but what is wrong with the Green Paper is that it is not setting us a long-term target of trying to move up towards that 22 per cent. figure. It says that 15 per cent. is the most that we can hope for in the 1990s. Surely we must get back to a policy in which we try to expand higher education rather than complacently talk about cutting the resources that need to go into it.
I should like to move on to a series of specific points in the Green Paper. I refer first to the number of students. The key is the level of Government support for students, particularly the missing section in the Green Paper about the level of student support. Almost everybody believed that the Green Paper would come out in January, then the Government said that they could not produce it in January because they wanted to include a section on student support. That was perfectly valid. If the Government put off publishing the Green Paper until May, why did they still leave out the section on student support? The suspicion that is growing in the country is that the Government want to slip out their proposals on student support in August, at a time when there will be least opportunity for students to protest and for the Secretary of State possibly to get into the same difficulties that he faced in the autumn. The Secretary of State must explain to us whey he has not come forward with his proposals for student support, because if it was important that the section on support should be an integral part of the Green Paper in January, why is it not there now?
My hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. Hughes) referred to participation among working class youngsters. The Secretary of State talks about improving the participation rate, but to make that a reality some financial support must be given to encourage youngsters to stay on at school. In Tameside in my own constituency, about 24 per cent. of 16-year-olds who achieve good O-level results do not stay on in education. If they obtained good apprenticeships or other opportunities, that would be fine, but many of them end up on the less reputable YTS schemes or in unemployment. I wish that the Government would encourage youngsters with working class back-grounds to stay on to obtain a further education and participate in higher education.
The Government must also address themselves to a far greater degree to the participation rate among ethnic minorities as well as to the problem of attracting mature students. The Green Paper pays lip service to this but does not refer to resources for further education to give mature students a second chance or to the problems faced by the

institutions. The Secretary of State must address himself to how we can make it financially possible for mature students to enter universities and polytechnics. That aspect of student support is also missing.
The Green Paper also contains two of the Government's obsessions, one of which is sponsorship. They seem to think that sponsorship which may work for snooker or football can apply to many other areas. They began by wanting more and more sponsorship for the arts, and took away Arts Council funding. They are now talking about sponsorship or advertising for the BBC. Does such sponsorship exist within industry, and does industry have the money to pay for it? There is no evidence that industry will pay.
The Government should stop this obsession with sponsorship—or perhaps the Secretary of State intends to come to the House wearing a sweater advertising a brand name product and claim that he is the sponsored Secretary of State. The right hon. Gentleman should recognise that, once there is sponsorship, the sponsor becomes the dictator and the manipulator.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: rose—

Mr. Bennett: No, I shall not give way.
The Government also want to bash the trade unions and other unions. I am surprised at their attack on students unions' sabbatical officers. During my visits to academic institutions, I have been struck by the high quality of most sabbatical officers. More often than not, the good sabbatical student union officials ensure that those unions are effective, democratic institutions which cannot be hijacked by a small band of extremists.
The Secretary of State talks about the importance of freedom of speech in the universities and students unions. I agree. However, the last time that I was shouted down at a students union meeting — also attended by the Under-Secretary — it was by the Federation of Conservative Students. It organised the hooligans on that occasion.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: rose—

Mr. Bennett: No, I will not give way.
Does the Secretary of State now accept the views of the visiting committee that the Open university is doing a first-class job? If so, why is he not prepared to come up with the money so that development can continue in areas such as PICKUP and the turning of its loan into a grant?
The right hon. Gentleman also talks with great enthusiasm about switching from the arts to the sciences, but he does not talk about the cost implications. He does not point out that in many cases science courses are nearly twice as expensive as arts courses. Such a switch will either mean a cut in the number of student places or that the new science courses will have to be run on the cheap.
The right hon. Gentleman must also address himself to the fact that there is a shortage not of scientists but of those with an arts education who are literate in the sciences and technologies. It is most important to encourage people who receive arts degrees to study further and make themselves literate in science and technology. In the Green Paper the Secretary of State firmly talked about discouraging the longer degree courses. Although their attraction is that they try to bridge the gap between the arts and the sciences, he attacks them most.
Will the Secretary of State comment briefly on his views about pay? Several hon. Members raised that


question, and its implications for morale. He should consider that both the Green Paper and pay problems are beginning to make many people who work in universities and polytechnics extremely disillusioned. Evidence shows that in some key areas of science and technology, on which he is so keen, it is becoming increasingly difficult to recruit staff.
Will the Secretary of State tell the House who has given the Green Paper an enthusiastic welcome? When did he convince the Prime Minister that her target in the 1970s of 22 per cent. was wrong, and that the most that we could aim for was 15 per cent.? Why, after six years of the Government's monetarist policies, must we set our targets for education for the next 10 years increasingly low, rather than raising them and our expectations?

Sir Keith Joseph: I shall try to answer as many questions as I can in the time available.
The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud), in a not altogether friendly discussion on the Green Paper, pointed out that the universities would like to be able to engage at least 900 more lecturers and senior staff during the next period. He was right. However, I must tell the House that during the same period about 700 vacancies are expected to occur. There will still be a worrying gap, but it will be of the order of at least 200, rather than at least 900.
The hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. Hughes) in a good speech—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I always find his speeches well worth listening to. Although he and I would disagree about some of the reasons behind his diagnoses, he always makes a solid diagnosis. He reminded the House that we are still far from achieving the common standards of citizenship to which Robbins and his committee aspired. The hon. Gentleman spoke of his aspiration for more and more of his constituents to attend higher education. He will agree that if that is to come to pass, as we all should like—there is no reason why his constituents are inherently inappropriate for higher education—we must make our schooling more effective. Both sides of the House will agree with that. The Opposition may criticise us for having aspirations and yet not being able to find the resources which they think are necessary. However, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the way to worthwhile higher education for more people is through better schooling.
My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) asked some awkward questions. He asked why Brunei university had not been selected for sharing in the switch money. The invidious matter of selecting universities, and in due course some polytechnics, for sharing that money was carried out by the University Grants Committee on behalf of the universities and by industry.
Industry has had the invidious job of identifying those universities which it judges could most usefully receive the switch money. Against the background of not enough money being available and having to spread it widely, the choice has been made. It is no discredit to Brunei; there are some very strong competitors.
My hon. Friend asked why more higher education skills have not been used to modernise British industry. Indeed, it is a question which goes to the heart of our relative

failure over the past four decades. We can all make speeches on the combination of reasons, and I am sure that successive Governments have played their part in those discouragements, but one has to identify patchy management as one of the factors. No doubt management would say that it has not been altogether encouraged by the attitude of trade unions. At any rate, I think that we are now all agreed that there should be more links between business and higher education, and that is manifestly taking place.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) made an awkward intervention. He asked how a decision might be made in due course if any institutions, in the Government's view, had to be closed. It is not yet clear whether any whole institutions will need to be closed, although that may be necessary to preserve standards as student numbers fall. The Government would, of course, discuss with the UGC and the NAB the way in which judgments about scale and scope are to be made. The criteria governing all such judgments—those concerning expansion and selectivity as well as rationalisation and closures — should, in the Government's view be excellence, fitness for purpose and cost effectiveness. Where institutions, departments and courses are excellent, fit for their purpose and cost-effective, they need not fear for their future, regardless of whether they are in the university or the public sector.
My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) thought that higher education institutions should be able to manage change. He echoed, effectively and eloquently, the views expressed by the Jarratt committee. In its report, the committee suggested the ways in which institutions could, without losing the decentralised judgment making which occurs in higher education institutions, decide together the best way to deploy their resources. I commend the Jarratt report to my hon. Friend and to the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold) rightly focused on quality and effectiveness in the schools, and spoke with particular interest about the scope that there still is to encourage girls to participate more fully in some parts of the curriculum which they have tended — probably under parental pressure and expectations—to neglect in the past. The trends are moving in the right direction. As my hon. Friend knows, more girls are studying the sciences, the technologies and engineering, but there is much more room for them. We are giving every encouragement so that there may be movement in the direction that my hon. Friend wants. I have a large number of examples, if she is interested in them.
The hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) asked several questions. If eligible demand grows — he was particularly interested in adult education — the Government will certainly review policy, as they have said in the Green Paper. On a Green Paper basis, they are making some projections based on trends, in so far as they can be predicted. If the trends prove to be too pessimistic, the Government will review policy.
With regard to overseas students, as my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) said in his interesting speech, an addition was announced yesterday to the number of overseas students for whom we shall provide finance.
However, I do not want hon. Members to mislead themselves. Although there has been a fall in the number


of overseas students attending universities since 1979, that number has recently started to rise again. The number still here, including those who are paying their own way, is not so dramatically below the 1979 figure as was predicted at the time.
The hon. Member for Wrexham also asked me to deal with the Prime Minister's letter to the Association of University Teachers and explain why level funding has not been provided. Since that letter was written, the public purse has incurred a number of expenditures that were not predicted at that time—for instance, the small matter of the miners' dispute—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) belongs to a party which suffered more than hiccups during its last period of office. In one particular year it had to cut expenditure on higher education by no less than 8 per cent.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) shared the disappointment of A-level students who have not obtained sufficiently good examination results to gain places in higher education. I accept, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson), that A-level results are merely the least bad indicators that are available. It is realised generally that they cannot be wholly replied upon. Nevertheless, surely we must agree that there have to be certain standards for entry to higher education and that those standards must be reached.
The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) asked me when the student support finance paper will be published. I hope that it will be published by the end of next month. He also asked me to comment upon the visiting committee's views on the Open university, which it highly esteems. However, he failed to point out that the visiting committee also said that the Open university is unable at the moment, because of its management arrangements, to cost the different options that are available to it. It said that, provided that the Government stretched out the reductions — in other words, did not impose them so quickly—the Open university should be able to cope with all that it wanted to do by making economies. The Government have met the recommendations of the visiting committee, and I hope that the Open university will now be able to cope.
I now wish to deal with a point that was emphasised by the hon. Members for Dundee, East, for Denton and Reddish and for Durham, North. The hon. Member for Dundee, East asked whether we really expected private money to be put into universities and polytechnics to help them to support their building programmes. The hon. Member for Durham, North once again emphasised that more money from the taxpayer should endlessly be made available. He said that the Government should not predict a fall in the number of students, even for demographic reasons, and that therefore there should be more spending upon education. The fact is that under successive Governments huge funds have been provided for higher education, running into billions of pounds. They should surely result in more efficient management, as has been identified by successive committees. Against that background, is it really the view of the Opposition and of the hon. Member for Dundee, East that the Government should not encourage higher education to raise, if it can, more money privately?

Mr. Radice: Will it?

Sir Keith Joseph: Not only will it, but during 1983–84 the universities raised an extra £54 million in that way. This is not a total answer, but it shows what can be done.
The Opposition are still hooked on the old 1960s fallacy that more means better, but more does not necessarily mean better. That is why it is essential that, if more is spent, it should be accompanied by the policies to make sure that more is better. The Opposition have ignored those policies; I hope that the House will reject the motion and accept the amendment:

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 176, Noes 254.

Division No. 226]
[10 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Forrester, John


Anderson, Donald
Foster, Derek


Ashdown, Paddy
Foulkes, George


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Freud, Clement


Barnett, Guy
Garrett, W. E. 


Barron, Kevin
George, Bruce


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Godman, Dr Norman


Beith, A. J. 
Gould, Bryan


Benn, Tony
Gourlay, Harry


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Bermingham, Gerald
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Bidwell, Sydney
Hardy, Peter


Blair, Anthony
Harman, Ms Harriet


Boyes, Roland
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Haynes, Frank


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Heffer, Eric S. 


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Caborn, Richard
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhal!)


Callaghan, Rt Hon J
Home Robertson, John


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Campbell, Ian
Howells, Geraint


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hoyle, Douglas


Canavan, Dennis
Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cartwright, John
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy ('Hillh'd)


Clarke, Thomas
John, Brynmor


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Oeeside)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Cohen, Harry
Kennedy, Charles


Coleman, Donald
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Conlan, Bernard
Kirkwood, Archy


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Lambie, David


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Lamond, James


Corbett, Robin
Leadbitter, Ted


Corbyn, Jeremy
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Cowans, Harry
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Litherland, Robert


Craigen, J. M. 
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Crowther, Stan
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Cunningham, Dr John
Loyden, Edward


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
McCartney, Hugh


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Dobson, Frank
McGuire, Michael


Dormand, Jack
McKelvey, William


Dubs, Alfred
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Duffy, A. E. P.
McWilliam, John


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Madden, Max


Eadie, Alex
Marek, Dr John


Eastham, Ken
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Ellis, Raymond
Martin, Michael


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Maxton, John


Ewing, Harry
Maynard, Miss Joan


Faulds, Andrew
Meacher, Michael


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Meadowcroft, Michael


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Michie, William






Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Soley, Clive


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Spearing, Nigel


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Steel, Rt Hon David


O'Brien, William
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


O'Neill, Martin
Stott, Roger


Parry, Robert
Strang, Gavin


Patchett, Terry
Straw, Jack


Pavitt, Laurie
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Penhaligon, David
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Pike, Peter
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Powell, Rt Hon J. E.(S Down)
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Tinn, James


Prescott, John
Torney, Tom


Radice, Giles
Wallace, James


Randall, Stuart
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)
Wareing, Robert


Richardson, Ms Jo
Weetch, Ken


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Welsh, Michael


Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
White, James


Rogers, Allan
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Rooker, J. W. 
Wilson, Gordon


Rowlands, Ted
Winnick, David


Sheerman, Barry
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Shore, Rt Hon Peter



Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Silkin, Rt Hon J.
Mr. Allen McKay and


Skinner, Dennis
Mr. Sean Hughes.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Fletcher, Alexander


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Fookes, Miss Janet


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Forman, Nigel


Ancram, Michael
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Ashby, David
Forth, Eric


Aspinwall, Jack
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Fox, Marcus


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Franks, Cecil


Bellingham, Henry
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Best, Keith
Freeman, Roger


Bevan, David Gilroy
Fry, Peter


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gale, Roger


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Galley, Roy


Blackburn, John
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Body, Richard
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bottomley, Peter
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Goodlad, Alastair


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Gorst, John


Bright, Graham
Gow, Ian


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Gower, Sir Raymond


Buck, Sir Antony
Grant, Sir Anthony


Burt, Alistair
Greenway, Harry


Butcher, John
Gregory, Conal


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)


Carttiss, Michael
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Cash, William
Grist, Ian


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Grylls, Michael


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Gummer, John Selwyn


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Clegg, Sir Walter
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Cockeram, Eric
Hampson, Dr Keith


Conway, Derek
Hanley, Jeremy


Coombs, Simon
Hannam, John


Cope, John
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Cormack, Patrick
Harris, David


Cranborne, Viscount
Harvey, Robert


Crouch, David
Haselhurst, Alan


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Dickens, Geoffrey
Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)


Dorrell, Stephen
Hawksley, Warren


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Hayward, Robert


Dover, Den
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Emery, Sir Peter
Henderson, Barry


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Hickmet, Richard


Fallon, Michael
Hind, Kenneth


Favell, Anthony
Hirst, Michael


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)





Holt, Richard
Price, Sir David


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Proctor, K. Harvey


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)
Raffan, Keith


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Rathbone, Tim


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)


Hunter, Andrew
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Roe,Mrs Marion


Key, Robert
Rowe, Andrew


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


King, Rt Hon Tom
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Knowles, Michael
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Knox, David
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Lamont, Norman
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lawler, Geoffrey
Shersby, Michael


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Silvester, Fred


Lester, Jim
Sims, Roger


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamfd)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Lightbown, David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lilley, Peter
Speller, Tony


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Spencer, Derek


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Lord, Michael
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lyell, Nicholas
Steen, Anthony


McCrindle, Robert
Stern, Michael


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Macfarlane, Neil
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


MacGregor, John
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Maclean, David John
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


McQuarrie, Albert
Stokes, John


Major, John
Stradling Thomas, J.


Malins, Humfrey
Sumberg, David


Malone, Gerald
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Maples, John
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Mather, Carol
Temple-Morris, Peter


Maude, Hon Francis
Terlezki, Stefan


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Merchant, Piers
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Thornton, Malcolm


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
 Thurnham, Peter


Mills, lain (Meriden)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Tracey, Richard


Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Trippier, David


Moate, Roger
Trotter, Neville


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Twinn, Dr Ian


Moore, John
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Moynihan, Hon C.
Viggers, Peter


Murphy, Christopher
Waddington, David


Neale, Gerrard
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Needham, Richard
Walden, Georgev


Nelson, Anthony
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Neubert, Michael
Waller, Gary


Newton, Tony
Ward, John


Nicholls, Patrick
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Norris, Steven
Watson, John


Oppenheim, Phillip
Watts, John


Ottaway, Richard
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Page, Sir John (Harrow W)
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Wheeler, John


Parris, Matthew
Whitney, Raymond


Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abdgn)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Winterton, Nicholas


Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Wolfson, Mark


Pollock, Alexander
Yeo, Tim


Porter, Barry
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Portillo, Michael



Powell, William (Corby)
Tellers for the Noes:


Powley, John
Mr. Ian Lang and


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Mr. Tony Durant.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 33 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.

MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House congratulates Her Majesty's Government on its policies for ensuring that higher education is better managed and more attuned to the needs of the economy, for maintaining and enhancing standards, and for broadening the criterial for access to higher education; urges Her Majesty's Government to continue to seek ways of making more effective use of the resources available for higher education; and welcomes the framework for the future development of higher education set out in Cmnd. 9524.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,

That, at this day's sitting, the Coal Industry Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.)

Orders of the Day — Coal Industry Bill

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause 1

Orders of the Day — DEFICIT GRANTS TO NATIONAL COAL BOARD 10.15 pm

Mr, Michael Fallon: I beg to move, in page 2, line 16, leave out '600' and insert '400'.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 2, in page 2, line 20, leave out '800' and insert '600'.
No. 3, in page 2, line 20, at end insert—
'(6A) No order shall be made under subsection (6) above unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that supply of, and demand for, coal have been brought into reasonable balance.'
I remind the House that these are narrow amendments.

Mr. Fallon: At least one reason for moving amendment No. 1 and speaking to amendments Nos. 2 and 3 is that not only is the Bill reported from the Committee unamended but no amendments were even considered in Committee. Therefore, there was a danger that had no amendments been tabled for the Report stage the full implications of clause 1 might have passed unnoticed.
The power in subsection (1)(a) is not unreasonable, in that the group deficit of the board in the last financial year is known or is at least capable of being ascertained because the date is past and the money has been spent. Beyond noting its enormity — the ceiling of £1·2 billion established in subsection (4)—there is not much that the House can do about it, having supported the Board and the Government in the year of the miners’ strike.
Whereas that may be so, the power in subsection (1)(b) is of a different order, in that it is in effect a licence to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for deficit funding of the board in two forthcoming years, one of which has

barely started. Deficit funding in itself has long been recognised as a far from ideal way of financing a nationalised industry. In this case, it means that in each of the two forthcoming financial years the incentives are to a certain extent removed for prudent financial management by the Board, for cost saving and for improvements in the Board's financial and budgetary arrangements as proposed by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report.
Confronted with such proposals, if the House is concerned, as it should be, with the enormous sums that are to be handed over to the Secretary of State for him to forward to the board, it seems that the House can do only one of two things—either it can tighten the monitoring arrangements to make the Board's budgetary performance month by month and quarter by quarter more accountable and more transparent to the House, or it can tighten the ceilings that my right hon. Friend has proposed in the Bill.
I accept that the former course is difficult. Day to day management of the board's affairs is a matter for the board and not for the Department, let alone for the House. The extent of the Board's technical insolvency is now such that I believe the House is looking to the Department and to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State to assure us that the monitoring arrangements which already operate will be conducted more rigorously and on a more regular basis than for some years. I hope that he can persuade me that the moneys being provided are being properly and necessarily spent. I am sure he will be able to reassure me on the scope and persistency of the monitoring arrangements. Nevertheless, the second course, that of tightening the financial ceilings proposed in the subsection, is obviously the course that should be preferred.
Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 merely provide that the ceilings in each case be lowered. It may be objected that the reduction proposed is as arbitrary as the ceiling. However, there is some merit in reducing the original sum which is to be lost in the next two years—some £600 million, which is nearly 10 times the amount that De Lorean lost in four years, is to be lost by the coal board in two—by one third or some £200 million because that represents the minimum improvement that could be achieved in the board's performance by a greater liberalisation of its activities, by the expansion of its profitable activities, for example, the open-cast operation and by the improvement of its marketing and sales arrangements.
Amendment No. 3 seeks to make the final increase of £800 million — £600 million if amendment No. 2 is accepted by the House—dependent upon my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State satisfying himself that demand and supply in the industry had been brought into reasonable balance. That might be thought to be a rather radical amendment to be tabled on Report for a Bill of this kind, but it is a Bill which prints public money for the board—this time to the tune of some £2 billion—but which yet again does not touch upon the duties of the board as laid down in the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act 1946.
As I believe I pointed out on Second Reading, the Bill is deficient in that it does not address itself to that problem. The board is charged under that Act with the duty of securing the efficient development of the coal industry. However, a board which has come to the House virtually


every two years has failed in its principal and mandatory duty and is as insolvent on its statutory basis as it is financially insolvent.
Ample evidence has existed from the late 1970s, from the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in 1983 and the events of the past 12 months to show that the duties imposed in the 1946 Act are not just out of date but are redundant and that a new statutory framework is required.
Amendment No. 3 seeks only to provide the minimum foundation for that framework.

Mr. Peter Hardy: rose—

Mr. Fallon: I shall not give way, because I am just finishing.
I should have thought that it was a condition which any extractive industry would welcome and could meet. I hope that such a condition might be a preliminary to a more general review of the legislation underpinning the board, might also serve as a sign of good faith to an increasingly sceptical taxpayer and might find favour not just with my right hon. Friends but with the House.

Mr. Alexander Eadie: I intervene briefly for the sake of accuracy and for the information of the House. It is not true that no amendment was tabled in Committee. A new clause was tabled. The hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) might have studied the report of the Committee stage before he made that statement.

Mr. Hardy: I did not wish to speak, because I had hoped that the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) would have been gracious enough to allow me to intervene merely to ask him to tell us what he means by the word "reasonable". He talks about the demand for coal being "brought into reasonable balance". My hon. Friends and I are eminently reasonable people. We should have liked to hear the hon. Gentleman's definition of "reasonable", as it may not be the same as ours.
One important factor in the decline in the demand for coal to which the hon. Gentleman did not refer is that the level of industrial activity in Great Britain today is much lower than was anticipated when some of the costly investment schemes began. For example, the demand for engineering steel made by the electric arc process, which indirectly consumed enormous quantities of coal, has been slashed dramatically and, therefore, the demand for coal has decreased dramatically. If unemployment remains at the real level of 4 million and industrial levels of activity stay as they are, our coal production may be higher than was planned a few years ago when unemployment was markedly less and industrial activity was markedly higher than today. The hon. Gentleman gives counsels of despair, because if there is not some economic and industrial recovery, it will not be the coal industry alone but his party that will be in jeopardy. The electorate, not just people from the coalfields, are not prepared to tolerate the current levels of activity and, therefore, the current low levels of demand for energy.
We must have an element of forward vision. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State, even in this benighted Government, has more vision and hope than the hon. Member for Darlington displayed in his sad and sorry amendments.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. David Hunt): I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) will concede that the careful consideration that a Committee gives to an important Bill of this nature cannot be judged by the number of amendments that may or may not have been tabled, because I believe that the Bill has had the most careful scrutiny. The fact that it has been greeted with approval by both sides of the House demonstrates the good will that is attached to this great industry, especially at this crucial stage. I can readily understand that hon. Members feel impatient with successive requests for additional deficit grant for the NCB. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington that these requests must cease. I reiterate the Government's firm objective that the NCB, like any other commercial enterprise, should earn a satisfactory return on its assets in real terms after payment of social grants. Only by returning to profitable enterprise and operation can the NCB offer lasting jobs and good wages to those employed in the industry.
It is in the interests of no one, whatever his political views, for the NCB to be dependent upon continuing handouts from the taxpayer. There is a pressing need to put matters right, to regain markets and to recover lost ground. During this period of reconstruction, it is right that the Government should continue to support the coal industry in the manner that we propose in this legislation.
The figures proposed in the Bill give an upper limit of £600 million on deficit grant payments for 1985–86 and 1986–87. Although the Bill provides for that ceiling to be raised by up to £200 million, in the first instance we look to the NCB to live within the £600 million. Any increase beyond that level must be subject to debate in the House. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington recognises that it is still too soon for the NCB to assess with any precision how fast production can be restored and those important markets rewon. I very much hope that we shall soon see the end of all industrial action in the industry so that everyone can move together in the right direction. In the meantime, it will be difficult to arrive at precise estimates of the level of loss this year and next. The figures in the Bill are no more than a framework within which the board must operate. We believe that £600 million is, in the first instance, a sensible and realistic ceiling. I shall expect the NCB to do everything it can to remain within that figure.
I move to the other comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington. Clearly, balancing supply with demand is one essential part of the NCB's return to viability. It figures in the objectives given by my predecessor in this office and given to successive chairmen of the board. For the coal industry to be profitable and to be able to provide lasting jobs for its employees, it is essential that the key problems of excess capacity and the high cost of uneconomic pits be tackled.
10.30 pm
However, it would be wrong to link that aim to the provisions for deficit grant, as amendment No. 3 does. As I have told the House several times, we have given the National Coal Board the objective of breaking even without the need for deficit grants by 1987–88. That must be our central goal. If we are to secure the future of the industry, bringing supplyand demand into balance is


clearly an important component of the task. But other factors must be included, such as productivity, efficiency, reducing costs and achieving a proper return on assets.
Moreover, I must tell my hon. Friend that it is not for the Secretary of State for Energy to judge the future demand for coal and to require the NCB to tailor its production accordingly. Those judgments are the responsibility of the NCB. The Government's role is to set the objectives, not to specify in detail the means of achieving them.
Officials from my Department and the National Coal Board meet regularly every month to review the year's figures and especially to compare performance against forecasts. All the figures supplied by the NCB to the Department of Energy, as the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) will know, are subject to thorough and critical scrutiny. Detailed financial planning and monitoring is, of course, a matter for the National Coal Board. However, I stress to the House that the public expenditure implications are such that we must be satisfied about the overall financial position.
I share the anxiety expressed on both sides of the House that the present state of the coal industry serves neither the taxpayer nor those who work in the industry. But the problems can be solved. We have given the NCB the firm objective of breaking even without deficit grant by 1987–88, and we expect it to meet that objective. But in the meantime it is right to make the deficit grant provisions set out in the Bill. I hope that, in the light of my comments, my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington will withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Fallon: I am sure that the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) will wish to check exactly what I said. I did not say that amendments were not tabled, but that amendments were not considered by the Committee, which is very different. I should tell the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) that I accept that measuring the reasonableness will be a difficult concept, but I did not rule out an increase in demand. What I wished to establish through amendment No. 3, which I notice he did not completely reject, was some relationship between supply and demand, whether supply increases or demand increases.
I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his assurances. I agree with him that the framework is there, although we might disagree about how tight it is. I especially welcome his expectation that the board's expenditure should remain within the lower figure in clause 1 for as long as possible, and the way in which he dealt with amendment No. 3. He did not seem to rule out the importance of the relationship between supply and demand, although I accept that the principal balance should not necessarily be linked with the deficit grant in the way that it must be to meet the technical requirements of the Bill.
Having said that, and with the assurances from my hon. Friend on the monitoring arrangements and the thorough scrutiny that he has promised, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. David Hunt.]

Mr. Eadie: The Opposition were conscious on Second Reading and in Committee that the industry badly needs

this money. Because of that, we have given the Bill a fair wind. Because of the Bill's financial implications, however, hon. Members were able to debate the coal industry.
The Minister has made little attempt to answer the points that have been raised. We asked about investment, new pit sinkings, power station generation from coal, the pit closure programme and the statement of the chairman of the National Coal Board which appeared in the: Sunday Telegraph of 10 March. We asked about manpower envisaged for the industry, about the output that is anticipated during the next five years, how many pits will be left and, of course, what the Government are doing about victimised miners.
I said on Second Reading that we could understand the Minister not being able to answer all of our questions in his winding-up speech but that he might like to write to me or deal with the issues that had been raised in Committee. Anyone who glances at the Minister's speech in the second sitting of the Committee will be struck by the poverty of his reply. I have had no letter from the Minister. We are therefore entitled to charge him with failing to give the information for which we asked and for allowing the chairman of the NCB to walk all over the Department of Energy.
As to the victimised miners, I quoted the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act 1946, the consultation and the conciliation procedures; and all we got was the bald statement that they did not apply during the strike. There was no attempt to say why victimised miners cannot be represented and have their cases dealt with in accordance with natural justice. The Minister and the Secretary of State echo the line of the chairman of the NCB more than common sense. Their line has been that victimised miners had recourse to industrial tribunals.
Ministers seem to sit back with their arms folded, pleased that they have given the House the advantage of their worldly wisdom. I have news for them—they can start unfolding their arms right away. I attended the public sitting of the Select Committee on Employment to which Mr. MacGregor gave evidence, which makes it clear that, although an industrial tribunal found in favour of a victimised miner, the chairman was not prepared to give an assurance that he would reinstate the man.
I should add that Mr. MacGregor said to the Select Committee only what he told me personally at a meeting that I had with him. Industrial tribunals were further debased at that sitting of the Select Committee. I took down what the chairman of the NCB said in cross-examination. I hope I have it right. He said,
I believe most of my employees are law abiding and therefore I do not need to go to industrial tribunals to find out what goes on. I would not want to insult them by thinking they are all criminals and would have to go through industrial tribunals.
That is a disgraceful public statement.

Mr. David Ashby: Why?

Mr. Eadie: How long can the Minister support Mr. Ian MacGregor in his capacity as chairman of the NCB? I am asked why. Is the chairman of the NCB to be allowed to say that industrial tribunals, set up by the House of Commons, are the only bodies which can discuss criminals who have recourse to an industrial tribunal? That is disgraceful 
The Minister said that he would take up individual cases of victimised miners. I questioned him yesterday at Question Time. I asked the Secretary of State for Energy
following representations to him for reinstatement of sacked miners arising from the miners' strike, how many have been reinstated as a consequence of inquiries to the National Coal Board.
The Minister replied:
I understand from the National Coal Board that of the 1,013 employees dismissed for offences related to the dispute, 373 have subsequently been re-employed." That was not an answer to the question which I asked.
I came back and asked:
Will the Minister tell us about the cases that have been referred to him?
The Minister made specific promises at Second Reading and in Committee that he would take up the cases of victimised miners referred to him. I asked him how many cases he took up and in how many cases there was reinstatement. I said:
In Scotland, he has failed abysmally, because no miner has been reinstated following a request by the Minister.
The Minister replied:
I have taken up every case that has been referred to me. I should tell the hon. Gentleman that all of us have been impressed by the responsibility of the vast majority of miners, who are now working together to repair the damage caused by the strike.
—[Official Report, 3 June 1985; Vol. 80, c. 20.]
That is a classic example of doublethink. Even at the second attempt the Minister could not tell me how many victimised miners had been reinstated as a result of his request. That is deplorable.
We have been the rounds on the Scottish aspect of the problem. We have met the chairman of the board of Scotland, Mr. Wheeler. We have also met Mr. Ian MacGregor. We have met the Secretary of State for Energy and the Secretary of State for Scotland. Since the Department of Energy wishes to abdicate its responsibilities we are asking for a meeting with the Prime Minister.
I wish to put on record a letter sent to the Prime Minister by the Scottish group of Labour MPs. It reads:
There is a great deal of disquiet about the high number of dismissals in the Scottish Area of the National Coal Board. There has not been a single re-instatement which is out of line with other areas, and there is a strong feeling that justice has not been seen to be done. It has been repeatedly said by NCB officials in Scotland that all dismissed miners were guilty of serious offences against working miners’ their families, or Board property. Recent written answers from the Solicitor-General for Scotland have established that in Scotland, of the first 603 people convicted as a result of the industrial dispute, only 38 involved offences of violence or vandalism. This does put a question mark against the circumstances in which many of the Scottish miners were dismissed. In the light of this, I ask if you would be prepared to meet a delegation from our Group to discuss the situation. Exchanges at Question Time give the impression that you too have been misinformed.
The responsibility for misinforming the Prime Minister lies with the Department of Energy.
The letter continues:
I am sure you appreciate that this is not an issue in which concern is confined to the Labour Movement, but it also shared by many Scottish Church Leaders and a call for re-consideration has come from three Chief Constables in Scotland.
I hope, therefore, that you will agree to meet our delegation and look forward to your early reply.
The letter is signed by the secretary of the Scottish Labour group.
I am grateful for the tolerance of the House in listening to that quotation. It is deplorable that the sponsoring

Department is not able to inform the Prime Minister or do anything. It allows the chairman of the NCB to walk all over it, yet it is the sponsoring Department. A group in the House, having met every agency available in the House, has to go to the Prime Minister and tell her that she has been misinformed, and ask her for the opportunity to present her with the facts on victimised miners. That is an indictment of the Department.
The answers that we are getting are a classic example of what has been happening during the passage of the Bill. We suspect that the Minister cannot produce from anywhere in Britain a single case where his intervention has resulted in reinstatement for a victimised miner. When I referred to two cases, which I quoted on Second Reading, the Secretary of State told me that if I was dissatisfied I should take up the matter with the chairman of the NCB. If that is not an abdication of responsibility, I do not know what is.
The House is about to give the Bill its Third Reading in the knowledge that the industry is still gripped in an industrial dispute because NACODS feels that it has been betrayed by the NCB in relation to an agreement, described by the Government is sacrosanct, on a modified colliery procedure on pit closures. I mentioned yesterday at Question Time that the overtime ban, decided by a ballot vote of NACODS members, was costing the nation about £24 million every week. It is humiliating that the Secretary of State seems to be paralysed about taking any action to make the NCB keep its word, which was agreed in October 1984 under the aegis of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service. The Government, with the NCB, claimed that conciliation and consultation were suspended during the strike. With the strike now over, they seem to be still buried. The Minister goes about the country speaking to miners in the language of conciliation and consultation, yet they are buried, and the Department stands back and allows the NCB to bury the spirit of conciliation and consultation.
This industry of ours—I say "of ours" because many of my hon. Friends, like myself, spent a lifetime in it before we were fortunate enough to be elected Members of this honourable House—is crying out to get back to normality. What are the Government doing about it? We do not know yet what output is expected of the industry. We do not know yet what manpower is expected to be retained. We do not know yet officially how much manpower will be shed, or in what areas, and we do not know how many pits will close, the numbers to be retained, or in what areas, despite the substantial sums of money involved in the Bill.
The Government's reluctance to give us information —I say this more with regret than with anything else— and the statement in the Bill about breaking even in two years lead us to believe that the Bill is designed to contract the coal industry. This is a pit closure Bill. It seeks to restrict coal production and cause job losses in many mining areas. The Minister is the third Minister responsible for the coal industry in the last six years. It is logical to assume—I say this without personal rancour —that he will not be in office to defend his handiwork when the Bill's life expectancy expires—[Interruption.] Conservative Members may giggle when I say that I make that remark without personal rancour, but I mean it. I speak to the Minister in his capacity not as an ordinary hon. Member, but as a member of the Government. Although the Minister may have left office in two years’


time, many of my hon. Friends will still be here. We will be seeking to defend the industry because we believe that the nation needs a strong and powerful coal industry.
The Bill will involve the payment of large sums of money as a consequence of the miners’strike, yet the Government give little information to Parliament. I advise the Minister to read the analysis of the miners’ strike, by the Fraser of Allander Institute, which is not a predatory Left-wing organisation. The hon. Gentleman deceives himself and, more importantly, the House of Commons if he believes that there is now a proper industrial relations climate in the mining industry. Even at this late stage, we appeal to the Department of Energy, as the coal industry's sponsoring Ministry, to exert its authority, to deal with the problems of the NCB, and to get the industry back to normality.

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: I shall detain the House for only a few minutes, but there are several points arising from the Bill that I wish to make.
As the House is aware, the Bill comes before us after 12 months of strife for miners and their families. That cannot be refuted by any hon. Member. In some coalfields, many members of management take the view that for the victor there should be the spoils. As a result, we now have the worst industrial relations in the mining industry since I joined it 46 years ago. If Conservative Members do not believe that, it is obvious that they do not understand what is happening in the mining communities.
There are several points to which we have a right to expect answers, even though the Minister failed to answer some of them in Committee. If it is the Government's policy that the mining industry should break even by 1986-87, they should tell us what that means. How many men will remain in the industry and how many pits will be closed? I cannot accept that the Minister is unable to give these figures, because I am sure that the chairman of the NCB has totted them up and knows full well how many pits will be closed by 1986–87. I believe that the figure is far in excess of any figures which have previously been given to the House.
The Government's policy is wiping out mining communities. In my own area — and some of these decisions have been taken since the strike ended—seven out of 10 pits are now on the closure list. I shall give the names of the pits, and if my information is wrong, I invite the Minister to refute it. The closure of the Ackton Hall pit, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Woodall), has been announced. All that the small township of Featherstone has is that pit. In the late 1800s, miners in it fought for their jobs and some were shot and killed by soldiers for defending them.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: So were the Luddites in the textile industry.

Mr. Lofthouse: I shall treat that remark with the scorn it deserves.
When the pit closes, that small town will have nothing left.
The other pits to be closed are the Savile colliery, the Glasshoughton colliery and the Ledston Luck colliery. Wheldale colliery and Fryston colliery are to go within four years. The Government are wiping out not only the

pits, but their communities. When the pits disappear the communities will be in a similar position to that which they faced during the strike. The local economy will be destroyed. During the strike the local chamber of commerce showed that if the pits closed, between 25 and 30 per cent. of all businesses would close. During the strike the local economy was denied the income of miners, and now it will be denied their income through pit closures, which are part of the Government's economic policy.
The House has a right to know what the Government intend to put in the place of those communities, which will face such devastating blows. Do not tell me that between £5 million and £10 million has been made available to the National Coal Board enterprise scheme. We need clarification of that. I was disappointed that the Minister would not accept new clause 1 in Committee, when my hon. Friends asked for that sum to be increased to £50 million. That is not a large sum, considering the great tasks that face the mining communities. It is not good enough to say, "We shall meet the demand when it comes."
What is the NCB enterprise board doing? Is it waiting for people to borrow a specified sum to set up a company? The areas involved are not attractive to other industries. Those areas receive no Government grants. The Government cannot deny that mining communities will be wiped out. They have a responsibility to put something else in their place.
I admit that for many of the older miners—men of 50 and upwards—the blow will be cushioned by the Bill and by the redundancy payments scheme, but what is to happen to the youngsters in mining communities who would usually have found their way into the mining industry, bearing in mind that, apart from a few odd pockets here and there, there are no other industries for them? What are we creating in the mining communities where youngsters can see no hope whatever of employment? They are not asking for attractive employment; they are asking for a chance to go into a hole in the ground to work, because there is nothing else in those areas. The Government's policy is denying them that chance.
The Government have an obligation towards the mining areas. If they fail them, they will be storing up trouble which it will not be possible to control. I hope that the Minister will do better then he did in Committee and answer some of the questions that I have put to him. It is not sufficient to say that we have Selby in the north Yorkshire area and that men who wish to go there can do so rather than be made redundant. That argument is wearing a bit thin, because I understand that we are talking of about 3,500 or 4,000 members in that coalfield, and there are about 16,000 men in the north Yorkshire airea.
If the jobs of 10,000 of those men are to be destroyed, something must be put in their place for the youngsters who are leaving school without any hope whatever. If the Government fail to consider those youngsters they will have failed miserably. Ian MacGregor was appointed to butcher the industry and the livelihood of men who have relied on the pits all their working lives. The Government are destroying something that no one should have the power to destroy.

Mr. A. J. Beith: We are addressing the question whether the Bill should be now


read the Third time. Although several criticisms have been made of it, I do not thank that any hon. Member will say that the Bill should not be read the Third time, or that anyone will vote against the motion. I think it is recognised that the money has to be expended in the industry. The one hon. Member that I thought might argue for the opposite course is the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon), but perhaps even he will not go so far as to resist the expenditure of the money.
For the expenditure of the money to be worth while, the working atmosphere in the industry has to be improved. Those who were critical of the strike strategy into which the National Union of Mineworkers locked itself might, I suppose, have expected that the factor that would militate against getting a better atmosphere in the industry after the strike would be the attitude of the majority in the NUM —those who resented the fact that others worked during the strike and disagreed totally with that strategy. It might have been expected that the real difficulty would come from that quarter, and that many problems would be faced in many pits, with some of the ghoulish threats uttered during the strike being carried out, and with men being prevented from working after the strike because they had worked during it. But I think we all know that that is not what has happened. Many of those threats proved to be as empty as they were foolish.
Unfortunately, there is now another problem, and it is being created by the NCB itself. In many areas of the industry, the board is in two ways preventing the establishment of the atmosphere that it needs to have in order to get the industry back on its feet. The first is the board's handling of the sacking of miners who were accused of vandalism or violence during the dispute. It is beyond argument that the board's handling of the matter has caused sufficient concern for criticism to extend far beyond those who supported the strike or who are associated with the coal industry. It includes church leaders, chief constables and others who express reservations and doubt about the board's attitude. The difference in attitude between different areas of the board illustrates that it is possible to handle the problem in better ways than has happened in some areas, notably in Scotland. Unless there is a pulling back from the collision course on which the NCB is involved in certain areas, the re-establishment of a decent working atmosphere in the industry will not be possible.
Secondly, the NCB has given the impression that it is seizing the opportunity provided by what for the board was a successful outcome of the strike, to bypass and avoid any procedures which will in any way slow down the process of closing collieries. I say that despite partly sharing the view of both the NCB and the Government that some parts of the industry's capacity are such a drain on it that they represent an obstacle to the future success of the industry.
There are pits which have to be closed, but in recent weeks the NCB has made it harder for the right atmosphere to be created in which the industry can be restructured and get going again. Various devices have been used. The excuse has been used of damage done during the strike. The claim has also been made that a colliery is not being closed but de-manned. For example, Bates colliery in Northumberland is not being closed, but voluntary

redundancy and the opportunity for miners to go elsewhere are bleeding the colliery of its labour force. It will reach the point where it has no future.

Mr. Jack Thompson: Bates colliery announced on 22 May that it is to close.

Mr. Beith: I was using the original decision of the National Coal Board about Bates colliery to illustrate that there is more than one way to skin a cat. Initially, it avoided announcing its decision to close Bates colliery by using the redundancy procedure to reduce the number of men working in the colliery so that closure would eventually become inevitable. That procedure was widely and understandably seen as bypassing the review procedure. The new NACODS dispute is precisely about that issue. A union which adopted a highly responsible attitude throughout the dispute is now involved in a separate dispute over colliery closures. It demonstrates clearly that the NCB has handled this aspect badly, too. Unless the NCB pulls back on both those matters, the opportunity to get the industry going again will have been lost.
There must be investment in the future of this industry. As I argued at question time on Monday, there is no sense in closing collieries with high production costs unless one creates capacity with low production costs. Therefore, it is essential to open collieries in areas which provide such an opportunity. I argued that coastal collieries in the north-east would provide that opportunity. The Minister has been to Ellington recently and has seen what has been achieved there. I have pointed out to him that, if another colliery were to be opened at Amble, more opportunities of that kind could be provided. Such collieries would provide employment in that area and they would also be within daily travelling distance for men in Blyth who have lost employment opportunities through the closure of Bates. They would also provide employment for men in other parts of the north-east. We must invest in new capacity in order to create a competitive future for the industry.
We must also invest in the communities which will suffer as a result of closures. That is why it was right for my right hon. Friends the leaders of the Social Democratic Party and of my own party and also for the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) to argue that the scale of investment in NCB (Enterprises) Ltd. must be much higher than the Government have conceded so far. The pace of development of that organisation must be sufficient to ensure that it can make effective use of much bigger financial investment.
The coalfield communities are ready to take up every opportunity and to explore every avenue in order to provide help where it is known that closures are to take place. Differences about the strike strategy have been set aside in the colliery communities. People who adopted different views during the strike are getting together on the principle that, whatever happens, they must work for new employment to be provided in those areas where closures are to take place. The NCB and the Government must match that determination by investment in communities whose future will not lie in coal mining. It is a tremendous task, but if it is not undertaken the social damage caused to a crucial part of our nation will be enormous.

Mr. Jack Thompson: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). I should like to refer to a few of the points that he has made and follow them through. They relate to the expenditure of £1·2 billion that is provided for in the Bill. Having worked in the industry for many years, I believe that this considerable sum of money ought to be used in a slightly different way from that suggested by the National Coal Board. The NCB can be criticised for the way in which it has spent the money that was made available to it in the past.
I hope that the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed and my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Ryman) will allow me to move into their constituencies, because my constituency is between the two. I have only one colliery left in my constituency, and in the whole of Northumberland, since 1947, we have gone from having 70 pits to five. I accept that some were closed under a Labour Government, but most of them were closed because of exhaustion. It is a very old coal field—the Romans took coal from it, and we have taken coal from it ever since.
Some of the collieries that were closed are now being open casted. The economic argument about that is fair and reasonable—one can argue the pros and cons of open casting certain coal or continuing to deep mine it. My constituency has the biggest open cast site in the whole of Britain but the coal that is being taken is the residue left when the collieries closed.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed spoke of the coastal pits, which are a different proposition. Some time ago, a colleague of mine was sitting on the same Committee of which I was a member. He was unaware of the facts of the coal industry. I spent 20 minutes trying to convince him that we took coal from under the sea, but I did not succeed. Many people are not aware that one can extract coal from the sea bed. It is common practice on the north-east coast.
In the constituency of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, Lynemouth colliery used a particular technique for working under the sea called a board and pillar system. In that, one uses coal pillars in the working to support the sea bed. The planners decided to carry out total extraction. Some of the coal fell behind the face workings and caused a spontaneous combustion. There was a fire, and the southern part of the mine was closed. Before the fire started, the chairman of the coal board said that the mine had 80 years’ worth of reserves left. The workings of the southern part had to be flooded to prevent the fire from spreading. The mine was closed in 1983, with the loss of 500 jobs, although some of the men were redeployed.
Those jobs were not lost because of the inefficiency of the miners, who at that time had the record for productivity, in a profitable pit. During the strike, the illusion was given that where mines were being closed because they were uneconomic, that was the fault of the miners. It was not. It was because of poor geological and dangerous conditions, bad management and planning and so on.
Another reason is the definition of uneconomic pits. Last week, the Minister visited a mine that in 1950 was not worked because it was held to be uneconomical. The coal was available to the private mine owners, but they did

not use it. However, the coal could be used for power stations, and after the second world war, the demand for that market began to build up, and the pit became economic. Now, the workings are six miles out under the North sea and about 1·25 million tonnes of coal a year comes out of the pit.
What will the future give us? The Bates colliery, in the other side of my constituency, in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley, has about 29 million tonnes of coal, again under the North sea. The NUM has not said that—the NCB has. Apparently, no consultation was made about the closure of that pit. That situation—and I refer again to open cast—is not a possibility. The coal reserves will be written off completely. The mine must be closed. It is six miles under the North sea. When that colliery closes, the working and the reserves that are left will be flooded and lost for ever unless at some time in the future another King Canute can push back the North sea. With those reserves having been written off and with new technology coming along and new developments almost daily in the coal industry, we have to look to new markets in the future.
I will be interested to hear the Minister's comments about how much of this £1·2 billion will be invested in experimentation and research into issues like gasification of coal, liquefaction of coal, the fluoride bed combustion systems and new techniques and ideas as to the ways of using coal. In my view, future generations will look rather askance upon that pit closure and the loss of those coal reserves, given the views and attitudes of the current intake. We cannot in future afford to write off the coal reserves that we are writing off these days in the old mining areas. It is too much to give away. It is a sheer waste.
I am somewhat sceptical about the proposals that are being put forward now in terms of opening new mining areas such as the Selby coalfield and areas in Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire at the expense of the old coalfields. some of this coal can be economically worked. At the Bates colliery in February 1984, before the miners dispute, there were discussions about reducing the manpower and about the new equipment that was available. Experimentation had taken place in that colliery because of the bad roof conditions, and there was success in coping with the conditions. Just over one year later in May 1985, the divisional director of the coal board made an announcement that the colliery was going to close. What had intervened, of course, was the miners dispute. One wonders whether it is a question of revenge or victimisation in terms of the attack, as I would describe it, upon the miners who work in that colliery.
We have to consider carefully the value of the coal industry as a whole. I read in a recent report produced by an independent source that the demand for coal in the next 15 to 20 years will go up because the other resources are going down. The other facilities of oil and gas, but excluding nuclear energy, are going down, so there are two options, coal or nuclear energy. Massive resistance is building up in the country towards nuclear energy, so we are left with coal.

Mr. Fallon: The last two speeches reflect the widespread concern of all parties with regard not only to the resources that have been provided under the Bill but


to the way in which those resources have been allocated in the past and the way in which they are likely to be allocated by the board and by the Government in future.
I have to disappoint the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) in that I never had any intention of voting against the Bill tonight, but I should certainly vote for it with greater confidence if I were clearer about the future of the industry for which these resources have been provided.
While the scale and scope of the industry—and this point has been made by Opposition Members—remain so uncertain, and while its ownership, structure, management and marketing remain more or less the same as they were when it was established nearly 40 years ago, I cannot see how we can offer those who work in the industry any longer-term guarantee of job security and satisfaction under the new arrangements than we were able to offer them under a loss-making nationalised industry in the past.
I fully understand why my hon. Friend has been unable to go into these matters during the long and tragic miners' dispute or, indeed, during the passage of the Bill, whose primary purpose obviously is to restore the finances of the board as a consequence of that dispute. However, I hope that when he sums up, or in some future debate, he will give us some inkling of the Department's longer term thinking. I should like to know, for example, what is happening to the sensible recommendations that were made by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in its report in 1983; when the review of the opencast operations is Likely to be completed, and what the implications are for the licensed operators and local authorities; when the small mines are likely to be further liberalised; and, above all, what steps can be taken to give the miners a much more genuine and realistic stake in the industry.

11 pm

Mr. Frank Haynes: To a certain extent, I sympathise with the Minister. I believe him to be the piggy in the middle. I have heard the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister say from the Dispatch Box — not so much now, but in the past two years—that uneconomic pits must close.
I sympathise with the Minister because he is not really party to that decision—he must, as the Minister with responsibility for coal, just get on with it. I give him credit for having got around the industry. He has been to see what it is all about and how it works. Recently he said that he had visited a certain pit. Indeed, in Committee he said that he had made visits to other pits. He has even been to a school for Nottinghamshire miners, talking to them about the mining industry.
The Minister knows as well as I do that I and many of my colleagues worked for many years in the mining industry, and we experienced the bad old days and the good days. Many of us were responsible for setting up first-class industrial relations in the industry — and it worked. The miners participated in all decisions at local, area and national level. That has been destroyed by the Government's policy on the energy requirements of the nation.
The real problem is that bloke from America. The sooner that we return to proper discussion about where the mining industry is going, the better we will all be. But we

need to get rid of the shackles. Make no mistake: the men in the industry will not play ball with a deceitful chairman of the NCB dictating to the board, the area directors and the men. My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) was correct: the chairman is walking over everybody. The Secretary of State and the Department are allowing that to happen. That can go on for so long, but then it will blow up in his face. There is ill feeling in the mining industry at pit level.
I wonder who is in charge. I have listened to Ministers and I have read some of the things that the chairman of the NCB has said, and I am convinced that he is walking over everybody. It is time that he went. I am sure that the Minister believes that in his inner self. We must return to some normality.
The Government are living in cloud-cuckoo-land if they believe that the mining industry will break even in 1986–87. It will not work. I worked in a big hitter with a production of 1 million tonnes a year and big profits, but it had a bad year with low production and its profits disappeared. That can happen to any highly profitable pit at any time. I can remember that when we went back after our fortnight's holiday the pit was never normal. We lost strip after strip of the coal face before we got back to normal. Sometimes it took a month.
The hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) had the audacity to submit amendments to reduce the amounts proposed by the Government. He has not got a clue. He is talking about finances and not about pit production, pit communities or how the industry works. He does not know the facts. If he had had experience in the mining industry, he would not have submitted those amendments. He would have had a completely different point of view. My hon. Friends and I are expressing views gained from our experience in the mining industry over many years.
The break-even policy that is proposed is almost unachievable. Two or three years ago the Prime Minister withdrew a long list of proposed pit closures. The hon. Member for Darlington was not here then. More money was given to the National Coal Board to help it on its way. Those pit closures were not carried out. Many were withdrawn after argument from this side of the House and also from the Government side about what the Government wanted to do. If the Government intend to follow that policy now, they will achieve their figures, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) said, they will destroy mining communities and put more people on the dole.
It is all right to talk about the redundancy money that will be provided, but that is not the be all and end all of it. A pit in my constituency is to close within eight weeks. Just down the road in the Broxtowe constituency another pit is to close at about the same time. Those pits are not far apart. When they are both gone there will be no other employment in that area. In the past when the youngsters left school they went to those pits, but they will not be able to do that in future. Where will all those youngsters get jobs? What will we do with the youngsters who cannot get work in that area?
The Government may talk about £10 million enterprise money. When I heard that those pits were to close, I went immediately to the chief executive of the district council to get him to apply for enterprise money. I knew that the board had made up its mind, with the agreement of the trade union, to close the pits; I must admit that the union had agreed.
There will be no jobs for the kids leaving school unless additional or alternative industry is brought in.
There does not seem to be any reaction; I have not heard a word. This has been going on for weeks. I am waiting for the chief executive to tell me what will happen. The board representative has been in the area, but we are still waiting to hear what will happen. No action has been taken and the closure is only eight weeks away.
The Government and the board need speeding up. The £10 million will go nowhere. We need much more money. What worries me more than anything is from where we will get the coal when we need it if the Government and the board get away with the pit closures that they want. I can remember the days, which are not that long ago, when we could not produce enough coal to supply the nation's industry. What did we do? We imported it and affected the balance of payments. I believe that the extension of nuclear power is behind the Government's thinking. That is what I believe is wrapped up in the Government's policy.
I have a good memory and I remember the Prime Minister talking about 10 new nuclear power stations. Other people might have forgotten that, but I have not. I have remembered it because I believe in the mining industry and the country's energy requirements.
If the Government want to expand nuclear power, they had better have another think because people are reacting against such policies. The Sizewell proposal has been going for a long time and still has not been agreed. Inquiries go on and on. It is all right to accept a pressurised water reactor which people in the United States will not accept because of what happened at Three Mile Island. It is said, "Let them dump it on our shores because we will have it." We need only one mistake because we are a small island. We shall be in one hell of a mess with the problems involved with nuclear power.
I hope that I have spelt out my feelings about the Bill. I am not rejecting it; I am accepting it because it means more money for the industry to help it on its way. The Government must think again about the nation's future energy requirements. We shall need every cobble that we can produce in the future. If we do not have the pits to produce those cobbles, the future speaks for itself.
I am trying to look at the matter sensibly. I am not a Luddite. I have worked in the industry. I know how it works. I understand it from A to Z. I have worked on every job underground. I know what I am talking about. I have served on numerous committees to discuss progress with the National Coal Board and any face that we should stop. Before we stopped one face, we opened another to replace it so that the men could transfer.
The board guarantees a job elsewhere to any man who wants to stay in the industry when his pit closes. The Minister did not say at the Dispatch Box or in Committee that if a coal face worker on £200 a week transfers from a pit that is to close to another he will enjoy that £200 a week at the other pit. That man has a reduction in his standard of living. There is an agreement whereby he is protected for 12 months, but after that if he is in a lower paid job he is on lower earnings. People are thinking about that again. It is an encouragement for them to take redundancy. The manpower therefore decreases. That is what the board and the Government want. The result will be that we shall be short of the coal that we shall need desperately in the future.
I do not know how many times I have said that the Government have closed down industry. That is why they are not calling on coal for their energy requirements. The Minister says that slowly but surely industries are returning and they need coal. What will happen when industries clamour for coal, which is the cheapest fuel that we can provide? From where will the Government obtain that fuel? We shall import again. The Under-Secretary of State shakes his head. We have imported before and, if we are not careful, it will happen again.
I am putting over this message in the best way I can. I know what I am talking about, and that is why I felt that I had to make this speech. I played a part in Committee. Some answers were given, but some questions were not answered in the way hon. Members required. There were difficulties in some matters, and the Minister was not able to give the requested answers. I understand that, because we have been told that we cannot have the answers to questions that we have asked about welfare benefits. I understand what is going on in the Government's mind and why they are deceiving the workers in the industry and the nation generally about the mining industry.
I wanted to be brief, but I have not been. I am sorry about that. I wanted to get this off my chest. I wanted to remind certain Conservative Members—not the Under-secretary of State, because I do not think that he believes this — who believe that we are a load of rabble and Luddites who are just having a go at the Government that we have thought this matter through sincerely. The Government are going in the wrong direction. The NCB is also going in the wrong direction, but it is supposed to be under the direction of the Department of Energy. That is not true. It is the other way round—the NCB is running the Government. I hope that there will be a change. I hope that the Government will get the message that the NCB will have great difficulty in achieving the objectives that the Government want the industry to achieve. I hope that at some time the Government will accept what is said and will change their mind so that the coal mining industry will flourish and we shall produce every cobble of coal that is required. It is a matter not just of the United Kingdom's requirements but of winning overseas markets.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: I hope that the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) does not feel that Government Members have any doubt about his sincerity. Those of us who have listened to him in debates over a number of months recognise that he speaks with great sincerity. We certainly would not class him as in the rabble-rouser category. However, I preferred his style of delivery tonight to his previous style. The sotto voce approach is more compelling than the megaphone-type amplified argument that we have heard in the past.
I disagreed with much of what the hon. Member for Ashfield said. I hope that, as we accept his sincerity, he will accept the sincerity of Conservative Members which has been well articulated by my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon). My hon. Friend has spoken for a great many Conservative Members who, throughout the life of this Parliament, have felt great concern about the level of public expenditure. We have had great debates on a succession of issues. There were, for example, many outcries and great agonising about the savings of £39 million in the education budget. Tonight we are talking


about expenditure of £1,200 million in the current financial year and possibly £800 million in the next financial year. I know that Opposition Members accept that those are substantial sums. Therefore, I hope that they understand that Conservative Members who express views about the Bill are interested in the industry but are also interested in the wider issue of public expenditure and the need to curtail it, and the need to ensure that the industry gets back to financial equilibrium so that we can allocate resources to other areas. To spend this volume of money on one industry is to concentrate resources somewhat unhappily, when there are so many other claims on the public purse.
Although much anxiety has been expressed by Conservative Members, we welcome the commitment made by my hon. Friend the Minister tonight to ensure that the board makes every endeavour to meet the targets that have been set. I sympathise with the suggestion of the hon. Member for Ashfield that the target of reaching a balance by 1986–87 will be hard to achieve, but I wish my hon. Friend and the board every success. We shall give them every encouragement to do so.
There has been much rhetoric from Opposition Members about the destruction of the industry. However, the figures prove that the Government, far from being anxious to destroy the industry, have demonstrated their commitment to it by the sheer size of the grant that we are discussing. A comparison of this sum with the amount that was spent by the Labour Government makes it clear that the Government have committed themselves to the industry with a large slug of taxpayers’ money. In 1978–79, total grants were £172 million; in 1983–84, the figure was £1,146. Those figures demonstrate clearly the concern of the Government, especially when they are set against the Government's determined efforts to restrain public expenditure. It is not true that we are talking about the destruction of the industry.
I understand how Opposition Members and the mining communities feel about the destruction of communities where the one industry is the pit. Since the war, in my constituency, 10,000 jobs have gone from the coal industry, and not one day's strike has been undertaken over those losses. I accept that, in the past, in the west midlands there have been other jobs to go to, and that that is not true of localities where, if the one pit closes, there are no other jobs. However, in some areas, major employing industries have closed, and those affected have not had the same privileges as are available to miners who have been made redundant.
The £10 million that has been allocated to NCB (Enterprise) Ltd is a fairly modest amount when compared with the sums that we are discussing tonight. If the board can live within the £800 million target, the amount by which it can do so might go some way towards increasing the money that will be made available to the enterprise scheme to enable communities that are adversely affected to set up industries, a good example of which is Corby. I make that positive suggestion to my hon. Friend, which he will not be able to deal with now, but which I hope he will bear in mind.
We should all be glad if the industry could live within the proposed limits and thereby make funds available to the enterprise scheme.
In 1978–79, £17·6 million was spent in redundancy payments. That figure rose to £202·1 million in 1984.

Mr. Hardy: There were more redundancies last year.

Mr. Howarth: I accept that, but the sums have increased considerably. It is also important to note that the rates have also increased considerably. Many of my constituents look longingly at people in the coal industry who have been able to take voluntary redundancy and who have received large sums and continuing payments. Such facilities have not been made available to people in equally important industries. I hope that those who have been made redundant understand that they have been accorded something that has not been available to any other group of workers. That in itself is a tribute to what the Government have done for the industry. Opposition Members must recognise that the sums available to miners have increased. I hope that they accept that that is not a sign of destruction.
The hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) mentioned victimised miners. There are working miners in my constituency who suffered victimisation and continue to suffer victimisation, even in pits which worked throughout the dispute. I hope that he shares my anxiety for those who have received pretty rough treatment from some of those who were not working. It would do his cause no end of good if he associated himself with that sympathy.

Mr. Hardy: The hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) should recognise that, although there might have been redundancies and closures under Labour in the 1970's, they were uncomfortable and were like a bad cold which required medication. We now have amputation and provision for redundancy, however generous, can be described as an anaesthetic. When that anaesthetic wears off, the amputation remains. Our anxiety about extensive closures and redundancies concerns their crippling effect on our communities.
There is and must be a continuing obligation. In the 1950s, the 1960s and possibly before, those of us who felt that there should be economic diversification in the coalfields found obstacles because the NCB, which then paid much lower wages than it did after the 1972 and 1974 strikes, was fearful of losing manpower. The nation was therefore protected at the cost of inadequate diversification in the coalfields. That is why, when pits in our constituencies close today, there is little other work for our young people. It is right to treat their fathers, elder brothers and uncles decently, because they will never work again and we must be worried about the waste of men in their forties or early fifties, but our main concern is about the boys at school today. They will lack jobs and purchasing power. The lack of development of other industries and the creation of economic capacity will threaten the prospects of their sisters and brothers who would not work in the pits.
We shall not oppose the Bill, but I hope that the Minister has detected the latent optimism in the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes). I share that optimism, despite my fears. The Minister will be optimistic about the prospects for the industry — about the 12·5 million tonnes capacity for Selby and the 12·5 million tonnes capacity from investment in and


reorganisation of existing collieries which will allow the board to produce coal more cheaply than it can from existing pits which are limited by their age.
If Selby and Belvoir go ahead and existing collieries are reorganised, coal will become much more competitive. If the Government pursue an intelligent energy policy they will seek to draw back into the coal market the 1,000 or more firms which could return to it. If that happened there could be a shortage of coal by the 1990s, despite the astonishing stocks which were built up before the dispute. Some Government Members are prepared to go to the world market to buy coal at its cheapest, but international coal prices might not always be lower and Britain might not always have the oil revenues to enable us to buy abroad. National strategic interest requires us to match our coal demand with home produced supplies.
I hope that the Minister will resist pressure from hon. Members such as the hon. Members for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) and for Cannock and Burntwood to ensure that we have the capacity to stand firm, meet our needs and save our overseas expenditure when the oil and gas have gone.
The lead time for the development of new power stations is long. I hope that the Government are not foolish enough to go along the PWR course, against which they have been warned, but we must be careful not to require the Minister to curtail support for the NCB if Government Members persist.
The basic reason for the large stocks of coal before the dispute was as much to do with Government economic policy in discouraging industrial activity and creating 4 million unemployed as through any fault of the NCB. Coal is a basic industry. If the economic infrastructure does not allow that industry to be profitable, it will feel the cold first and be relieved of it last.
I am delighted that the Government have recognised that the coal industry is important and must continue. I trust that the Government will ensure that the capacity of the industry is sufficient to serve the nation's needs when our oil and gas resources are diminished, and to provide the coal required for the basic chemical feedstock for industry.
Closing a steel works such as that at Corby to develop a funfair might be right in the short term, but we have to create wealth as well as spend it. If we are to retain a national capacity to create wealth, we have to retain a national coal industry of considerable size, although the hon. Member for Darlington, may not feel that to be a particularly reasonable proposition.
I am relieved that we have been discussing the Bill in recent weeks, because it has given many of my hon. Friends and I an opportunity to make public comment on matters that are exceedingly serious. Recent experience has probably given some reason for the Minister to accept that the views that we expounded in 1983 and the first weeks of 1984 were probably wiser than they were seen to be at the time. It is a pity that the 1984–85 coal dispute occurred and that that enormous cost was incurred—it could have been avoided. The experience since that strike ended has demonstrated the point that several hon. Members on both sides of the House have made in recent weeks, that the NCB's conduct since the strike has been unwise, there was an absence of magnanimity when it would have been entirely profitable, and there was a deceit, which was utterly contemptible, with regard to the agreement that was made with my association last autumn.
The Minister is aware of that, as are some other Conservative Members. In Committee, one of them described the coal board's behaviour as ham-handed and stupid. So it has been. It may have been worse than that. Conservative Members realise that last autumn my association was persuaded not to go into dispute with the board although it had secured an enormous majority for that purpose. The board came along and made an agreement that the Prime Minister described as sacrosanct. We have had some embroidery of the word, of its meanings and limitations, in the past few weeks. Repeatedly, Ministers, including the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, in all good faith at the Dispatch Box, gave absolute and categoric assurances that that agreement stood. As soon as the National Union of Mineworkers’ dispute appeared to end, the NCB decided, in my view deliberately, that it could ride a coach and horses through that agreement. That is no way for a public or even a private sector company to behave, to breach such agreements.
There have been further costs in the industry as a consequence of the industrial action taken by NACODS. It reached the view, as a result of a democratic exercise, that it could no longer trust the NCB, and was being treated with contempt. It believed that the agreement into which it had entered in all good faith and which I believe the Government had accepted with an element of integrity was treated with contempt by Hobart house.
The Minister may know as much as I do at this stage. I hope that the comments that have been made today will lead to a restoration of stability in the industry. I do not know whether that will happen. Much will depend on what happens next week. I do not know whether the Bill will come back to the House as their Lordships might not feel disposed to amend it. I hope that the Minister will use all the influence that he can bring to bear to ensure that when the NCB and the unions meet next week, the modified procedure will be established.
I know that the NCB does not particularly like that procedure. One reason was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Thompson). As many of my hon. Friends who spent many years in the industry will know, miners have said repeatedly that sometimes in the past the NCB deliberately underinvested or misinvested to secure the failure and therefore the closure of a colliery that it wanted to get rid of. When they were in the pit, my hon. Friends knew a lot about the industry, and could have drawn attention to misinvestment or erroneous management by the NCB. The Minister may have formed the view over the past year or two that the coal board has its imperfections. It may be that there is some value for the community in the unions within the industry having that early warning capacity which is built into the agreement which the Prime Minister said was sacrosanct. I trust that that procedure will be rapidly established and that the NCB will be kept to the promise which it repeatedly made. Ministers have repeatedly referred to that procedure in the House and outside, but it now seems that by trickery and deceit the NCB is trying to find ways around the commitments which Ministers have properly and honourably made.
Our concern is that a coal industry must be retained. There are prospects for that industry of real size and importance, and we should not make short-term calculations which will bring long-term disadvantage.
At the same time, the fears that I and my hon. Friends have expressed about our communities are very real. Some Conservative Members sometimes imagine that the threat is merely to a few collieries in the peripheral coalfields. There is often talk about retaining capacity in the central area. The area of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse), who made an important speech, is part of the central Yorkshire, Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire area. So is my own constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield. I understand that later this week the south Yorkshire area will be told its fate.
If there are pit closures in my area, it will be at astonishing cost, because unemployment rates in parts of my constituency where such closures are possible are as high as anywhere in Britain, and whose closures could mean unemployment rates that are higher than in parts of Northern Ireland. If any Conservative Member thinks that the trouble in Northern Ireland is entirely religious in its basis, and that it has nothing to do with the appalling and obscene levels of unemployment there, he is guilty of extremely shallow and superficial consideration. Therefore, the need to invest in our areas to create the economic opportunity that is essential if we are to give hope to our young people is overridingly important.
I have looked at some of the documents provided by the coalfield campaign. This is a serious attempt to have a mature and sensible debate in order to escure economic steps that will give sustenance and succour to our areas. One of the studies carried out by Mr. John Winterton of Bradford university—I do not think he is any relation of Conservative Members of the same name—appears to recognise that 80 pits could be closed and 180,000 jobs lost within two or three years.
I calculate that if some people in the NCB have their way — those responsible for stimulating rumours to engender a new fear in the coalfield in recent weeks— my own area could see 5,000 coal jobs go within two or three years. One of the local newspapers has tried to telephone me because it cannot believe those figures, but I gather that it has looked at the possible pit closures in the locality and worked out that the total job losses would be slightly less than 5,000.
The Minister and my hon. Friends who represent mining communities are aware that redundancies do not occur only at collieries that are closed, because automation and change is taking place, and job contraction, even at successful collieries, is proceeding apace. I cannot set foot out of my home without encountering people in Wath upon Dearne where I live who are accepting redundancy.
On Saturday afternoon I got out of my car in the centre of Wath and the first man to whom I spoke and whom I have known all my life said that he had accepted redundancy and was leaving the following week. Another man for whom I have enormous respect, who is the sort of man that Conservative Members, who were slamming the mining communities last year, would not recognise as a miner, who is a devout member of the same church as me and who has run our scouts since he left the airborne forces after the war has also accepted redundancy. Neither of them are at pits or coal board establishments, which face imminent closure. Thousands of men have accepted redundancy or early retirement since the end of the strike.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: I do not blame them.

Mr. Hardy: Nor do I. If a man has spent 40 years or more underground, he deserves the generous treatment that the constituents of Conservative Members may question or criticise. We do not object to our constituents who have worked for 40 years being treated decently at the end of their labours, but we are worried about our communities. We are not prepared to see our communities destroyed, young people who should be entering employment with verve and hope without any, or villages unable to offer even one young person an ordinary job. In Dalton Brook there is not a boy, girl or scarcely a teenager in normal employment—I checked recently.
If Conservative Members think that our society can survive that sort of experience for long, they are idiots. They may not think that it matters because we are in the Labour part of the country. They may think that they can maintain power by dominating the political representations of England, or the southern two thirds of England, but this island is far too small to suffer that for long. The Conservative party cannot run Britain without recognising that sooner or later it must command respect in Scotland, Wales, Yorkshire, Northumberland, Durham and the other areas which in the past have created the great wealth that the southern areas have cheerfully spent.
It is time that the Government understood that our communities will not allow their young people to face an utter and complete blight. I cannot accept that my constituents should be in that position, nor can hundreds of my hon. Friends. The Government must act with wisdom now. The Bill suggests that there is the possibility of wisdom. I deeply resent the fact that the modest display of wisdom in the Bill is being criticised and carped at by Conservative Members, who may be articulate, but who have not displayed a scrap of wisdom, which the country is entitled to expect from its Parliament. I hope that the Minister will reject his hon. Friends’ criticisms, and that he will ensure that the coal industry is sustained. I hope that he believes that the coal industry, is, has been, and must continue to be important in providing energy for the United Kingdom. For that reason the Bill is necessary.
It is necessary to provide adequate funds for the NCB to serve a proper energy policy and—no hon. Member should have to say this in the House now — for the industry and its chairman to recognise that the sooner we return to decent relationships in the industry and the sooner that the legacy of deceit and dishonesty, and the contempt for sacrosanct agreements of recent weeks is put behind us, the better.
If the chairman or deputy chairman of the NCB is not prepared to recognise that their conduct in recent weeks has been contemptible, I suggest that it is time that the Prime Minister was told very clearly by the responsible Ministers that her choice, Mr. MacGregor, has cost Britain billions of pounds and brought an industry which has an important future into a disorder that should not have been experienced. The sooner those two gentlemen change their ways, the better. If they are not prepared to change their ways, the sooner they go the better it will be for Britain and our coalfields.

Mr. Andy Stewart: I do not wish to detain the House any longer than is necessary, because it knows my commitment to the coal industry over the past two years.
I should like to reinforce some of the comments made by Opposition Members about the low morale in the coal industry today. It is lower than it has ever been in the past 40 years. I know that the Minister has taken a personal interest in going round the coalfields, and trying to reassure the miners in those coalfields that they have a viable and long-term future in the industry.
I should like to take issue with my hon. Friends who think that a deficit grant to the coal industry is a subsidy to those who work in the industry. The coal industry, like the agricultural industry, is given subsidies and deficit grants for the benefit of the customers and consumers of its products. We should not forget that.
I welcomed the Minister's commitment in Committee to NCB (Enterprise) Ltd., and I was delighted that the clause asking for £50 million was withdrawn, because the Minister said that, whatever was required to make new jobs available for the areas where pits were to be closed — whether it was £15 million, £50 million or £100 million—the money would be available if the case was made out. If, as the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) said, the chief executive of his district council has been in touch with the NCB with regard to the setting up of new enterprises and has had no reply, I agree that that delay should be ended at once.

Mr. Allen McKay: The hon. Members for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) and for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) talked about the money side of the Bill. The hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood mentioned redundancies and the sheer cost of the Bill. I am pleased that they did not have to live through the 1940s and the 1960s in the coal industry, when many difficult problems arose. Had they lived then, they would have known that, in the 1940s, the coal industry suffered hundreds of losses, and willingly so, because the men in the industry, believing in nationalisation, which had been championed for many years by Members of this House, realised that they had to slim down the industry to make it viable after the owners had wrecked it.
When there was a market for coal, and when coal could have commanded any price in the market, the miners sold their product well below the market price because they were asked by Parliament to do so for the benefit of the country. Therefore, it is only justice that the money that should have been theirs at that time should now be returned by the grants to the industry. Had they been able to sell coal in the market in the way that Conservatives always like to advocate, the money from those sales could have been invested, and there would now be no need to provide money for the industry.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) referred to the importing of coal, he noted that the Minister was shaking his head. If the Minister shook his head about the importing of coal, that is a step forward. if the Minister knows that coal imports are not to be increased, he must also know what the ultimate size of the industry will be. The Bill gives every indication of a massive rundown of the industry. As the new capacity in Selby and Belvoir comes on stream, there will also be the advent of MINOS. This system has been brought to perfection in various coalfields and will result in completely automated pits. The restructuring of the coalfields in the Barnsley area will result in a 21 per cent. increase in output and a 20 per cent. reduction in

manpower. It means that we shall be facing not a manpower loss of 20,000 but the closure of 80 pits, and that 70,000 or 80,000 men will be made redundant.
The recent strike was all about the contraction of the industry and the resulting fight for jobs and the preservation of coalmining communities. About 54 local authorities, all with a common interest, have now got together. They represent 16 million men, women and children, 1·16 million unemployed and 254,000 businesses. That is the size of the coalfield community campaign. They are looking at ways and means not only to save the industry but to bring alternative employment to those areas. By creating 3,000 jobs, Barnsley took a step backwards. The recent review showed that the closure of the Darfield main colliery and the restructuring of the coalfields in the Barnsley area would mean the loss of exactly the 3,000 jobs which it had taken Barnsley five years to create.
The story does not end there. It is only the beginning of the closure programme. My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) referred to a fuel policy. I wish that we had the co-ordinated fuel policy for which we have asked for many years. That is the only sensible way in which to deal with the use of energy. We were close to having such a policy when the British National Oil Corporation and British Gas belonged to the nation. The Government have decided that they will no longer belong to the nation. That is a backward step in the effort to create a co-ordinated energy policy. Only with such a policy will the energy resources of this country be used sensibly. Instead, we shall be producing as much oil and gas as we can as fast as we can, not only for home consumption but for sale overseas. This means, that unless new oil and gas fields are discovered our oil and gas reserves will have been depleted by the year 2010.
The closure of 80 collieries means that production will be limited to about 100 million tonnes and will lead to a crazy position. In that period coal should be at a premium, with the gas and the oil running out, and coal should be coming back into its own again. However, we shall no longer have an industry if the Government continue with their intention to decimate the coal industry.
Not long ago, I asked the gas board what it would take to replace the natural gas that customers are now using. It said that 100 million tonnes of coal would be needed, but we shall be producing only that amount. Therefore, where will the coal for industry, for chemicals, for liquefaction and the power stations come from? The energy can come only if we are to import coal on a vast scale, or if the Government have decided on a nuclear energy policy, with gas needs supplied from the 100 million tonnes of British coal and foreign imports.
It is time for a debate on our energy policy, and it is time that the Government came clean about what they are thinking will provide the energy resources for the future. If we run the coal industry down in the planned way, and if gas and oil are to be run independently, we shall leave a legacy for the next generation for which they will not thank us, unless we go flat out on a nuclear energy policy.
My feelings about the chairman of the NCB and his attitude are well known. I have great respect for him as a manager, but that is all. I have no respect for the way that he treated the steel industry, and even less for the way that he is treating the coal industry. When he was chairman of the steel industry, I went to see him about the process of making steel from powdered steel, a process that was


taking place in a steelworks in my constituency, which Ian MacGregor decided to close. He said that he was closing it because he could make steel more cheaply than by the powdered steel process, which was probably true at that time.
Lo and behold, our competitors from Japan and Europe are now making steel through the powdered steel process, which MacGregor decided was no good for Britain. It looks as though the liquefaction plan in the coal industry, and the fluidised bed experiments are in jeopardy if MacGregor brings to the coal industry the attitude that he had in the steel industry.
The 1939 war started from the Versailles agreement. The next war in the coal industry may start from the treatment of the dismissed miners. I attended two sittings of the Select Committee on Employment when it interviewed the chairman of the NCB in the afternoon and Arthur Scargill in the morning. There was a vast difference in the conciliatory approach to the problems of the NUM—the Minister shakes his head, but I was there for the whole day—and that of the NCB.
The attitude of the chairman of the NCB was belligerent —so much so that the attitude of the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst), who is no friend of the unions and certainly not a member of the NUM, changed as he questioned the chairman; the Minister can ask his hon. Friend about that. The chairman said deliberately that, as far as he was concerned, the dismissed miners would remain dismissed. His attitude was, "I am the chairman." His distaste for this place, his distaste for politicians, his distaste for being questioned was there to be seen, and he made no effort to hide that distaste.
I spent a period working at Hobart house, and I could not get away fast enough to go back into the coalfields. I do not think that I would like to work there now under the present chairman. Having said what I have about him, I do not suppose that I would get a chance anyway. After observing that attitude, I can understand why the late Geoff Kirk and Ned Smith and others decided to leave.
I want to turn next to the union officials at collieries who, following the central directive, have been sent underground, on which I have views for and against. After 20 years of encouragement by management not to go underground, but to be at their place on the surface to help the manager to quell disputes before they started, it was decided that they should go underground. It was the wrong move at the wrong time. Students who attended day release courses have now been told that day release will finish. That is a wrong move at the wrong time. Members of local authorities who have hitherto been allowed time off to attend council meetings or to change shifts to attend council meetings can no longer change shifts or have time off.
I wish to draw to the Minister's attention the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978, and I ask him to discuss this with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. The Act is clear:
The right, available to a relevant employee, is a right to claim time off work for specified public duties. There is no statutory right to pay during absence (though there may be a contractual right)… The employer does not comply with his statutory obligation to allow time off merely by allowing the employee to rearrange his duties so that the employee can make up for lost time elsewhere… They include the duties of a lay

magistrate, a local councillor, a member of a tribunal, a member of various National Health Service bodies, a school governor or manager
and members of the health authorities, as they used to be.
An aggrieved employee may make a complaint to an industrial tribunal that his employer has refused to allow him time off… It may also award compensation for any loss suffered by the employee or any insult or injury occasioned to him by reason of the employer's default".
I suggest that the chairman of the coal board is wrong in the central directive to say that councillors should no longer have time off.
From the chairman's attitude, it appears that conciliation and consultation will no longer exist within the ambit of the National Coal Board. He seems to be taking the view that that will be replaced by industrial relations tribunals, and that he will have nothing to do with it.
It appears that we are going to rely on imported coal or all-out nuclear power unless the Minister can alleviate those fears by what he has to say in winding up. Those fears would be alleviated if we could be told what is the policy of Government towards the coal board, what is their energy policy now and for the future, what the number of pits is to be and what is to be the output. Unless the Government intend that the economy will remain as stagnant as it now is, where will the extra coal come from when it is needed? Will the Minister also meet the communities campaign people to ascertain how investment will be made in the areas to meet the further closures that have to take place?

Mr. Dickens: I shall not detain the House long as I have the Adjournment debate and I am anxious to get home. I have listened patiently to the debate, which has been a good debate. Almost every Opposition Member has kicked Ian MacGregor and the Government around the Chamber, but there has been no mention of our Mr. Scargill.
I was one of the few Conservative Members who attended the coalfield community campaign meeting.• I want to tell Opposition Members a few home truths. represent an area dominated by the textile industry. In many villages and towns the textile mills were the sole employer. Villages built up around the mills and the towns grew from that, as did the outworkers to the mill and those who supplied it. Therefore when a mill closed it was equally as devasting as a pit closure. However, its workers did not get massive redundancy handouts; they did not have the guarantee of a certain job, even if at slightly reduced rates. The mills closed. I know that Opposition Members may say that that is different because the workers could do something else in the mill, but they could not because the mills had been felled to the ground.
I could not listen to Opposition Members kicking the NCB and the Government around the Chamber without their taking any of the blame. I mention the Luddites because Opposition Members said that soldiers had been at the pitheads. Of course, exactly the same happened at the mills, where the soldiers got the looms into the mills when they wanted mechanical means of producing cloth. It is almost a mirror image.
The mill workers did not receive the handouts that have been offered to the miners. I make no complaints because Opposition Members have always attended such debates, fighting their corner for their constituencies. That is right.


However, they must remember that the very people in my constituency who were put out of work with no handouts have mushroomed into small businesses that are growing and booming; they are paying taxes that are going towards the redundancy payments for miners and the money that we shall nod through this evening to support the miners. We make no complaint, but we feel rather sore when Opposition Members blame the Government for falling order books.
We cannot produce coal at a price that no one wishes to pay. It is futile to produce coal on that basis. Ian MacGregor was moved into the steel industry, but we must remember that he was No. 2 to Edwardes at British Leyland, which is now in good shape. There would have been no steel industry in Britain if MacGregor had not reduced the manning levels. We had to vote £75 million through this Chamber to buy off some of the workers with attractive redundancy payments. We had to buy a solution. The world was not impressed by the fact that the Japanese used only three men to produce a tonne of steel while we used seven men.
I ordered 5,000 tonnes of steel from BSC and it could not meet the price. I could not win overseas orders on that price and had to go overseas for my steel. If we had a steel industry that could not compete—not sharpen its pencils for competition—it would fail and there would be no steel industry. The Government are wholly committed to the coal industry, but the recent terrible strike was inflicted by the leader of the NUM. Hon. Members shouted at me during Prime Minister's Question Time when I said that he was a Marxist surrounded by Communists. Opposition Members went for me, but I was not far off the mark. They cannot just put the blame on the Government.
Let me give an example of how things slip up. In Northern Ireland they are putting a power station at a lignite mine in County Antrim. If it had not been for the coal strike, Kilroot power station might have converted from oil to coal. It has been delayed, and I hope that in the fullness of time it will be a coal-powered station. As a party we are committed to coal, but we want to see fair play.
Do not let us have tears about the Government and about the National Coal Board. Opposition Members should keep their tears for Arthur Scargill and the way he led them up the garden path. They should fight the corner for their constituencies, but they should fight fairly.

Mr. John Home Robertson: The hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) is perhaps too honest for his own health or for his own party's good. He was trying to suggest that it is an invigorating and good experience for whole communities to be scrapped and put in the dole queue. If he will not take it from me, I wish he had had a rear view mirror when he was making his speech because he would have been able to see the expression on the face of his hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) who has a legitimate concern. Some of us wish that he had expressed that concern about the future of the people working in the coal industry during the past 12 months instead of waiting until now to recognise the mayhem caused in the industry by the chairman of the National Coal Board.
Of course the Bill must have a Third Reading. The industry needs the money. I suppose this is part of the payoff for what the Chancellor of the Exchequer saw fit

to describe as a good investment. Many of us feel that the money might have been better invested if the Government had reached a settlement a very long time ago. Perhaps not quite as much money would have been required if the Government had not been so obsessed with the need to obtain the kind of victory that they think they have achieved. We should consider the double-edged effort that that will turn out to be.
Several of my hon. Friends have referred to the broader needs of the coalfield communities. I join them in paying tribute to the local authorities who are waging such an effective campaign for the need to develop those coalfield communities which are being afflicted by the contraction of the industry afflicted on them by the Government.
My own constituency suffered from the contraction of the coal industry in recent years and I have some experience of how difficult it is to attract new industries and employment into areas which have suffered cutbacks in mining. Apart from the obvious economic difficulties and problems of remoteness, there is the physical problem of finding places to build factories in areas that have been undermined extensively because of the danger of subsidence.
To pick up a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) and others, what will happen to the future of Britain's energy industry? What future is there for the coal industry? How will the nation find the sources of energy that it will need in the long-term or, indeed, the medium-term future? Our oil reserves will not last for ever. We shall need to tap our coal reserves. I fear that the massive contraction of the coal industry that the Government have in mind could leave us with severe long-term problems. I should like to see developments in areas such as Musselburgh upon which my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) did so much preparatory work years ago. We shall need our coal reserves in the future. It is a tragedy that developments are not taking place now when they would be easy.
The Bill must have its Third Reading, but it will not have it until I have had an opportunity to express to the Minister how strongly I feel about the conduct of the National Coal Board and its chairman. If Conservative Members and the Minister are becoming fed up listening to Opposition Members complaining about that, I warn them that they will go on hearing about it over and over again until some fairness is shown towards the people who work in the coal industry.
Reconciliation in the industry is being hampered by the fact that we are dealing with an elderly man who suffers from paranoia. If there were any doubt about that we had only to listen to Mr. MacGregor giving evidence to the Select Committee on Employment two weeks ago when he said that he felt that it was his duty to do some of the things that he had been doing because he felt that he was facing an insurrection. It did not seem like an insurrection from where I was sitting or to the coal mining communities in East Lothian. It looked like the Dunkirk spirit where families and communities were trying to work together to protect their jobs and the jobs of people about whom they cared in similar communities elsewhere. However, other people evidently saw the matter differently.
We are now seeing stupid, vindictive repression by the coal board management in various areas of the country, and in particular in Scotland. We have seen petty vindictiveness about concessionary coal, the withholding


of holiday pay, taxation and other such matters. Above all, there is the unwarranted number of dismissals, especially in Scotland.
The Minister is aware, because I have written to him, the Prime Minister, the chairman of the coal board and almost everyone else who is supposed to be responsible, that 17 men in my constituency have been sacked for no good reason during the dispute. That problem will not go away. Those men cannot be written off. They are people. They have families, neighbours and communities that care about them. It is intolerable that they should continue to suffer from what any right-thinking person must recognise as being a gross and unreasonable injustice.
Those Opposition Members who are aware of such problems will go on about them until some fairness is shown to those people. It is about time that the Minister, who is supposed to be responsible for coal, addresses himself to that problem because there will be no reconciliation in the industry until something is done for people like the 17 men in my constituency.

Mr. David Hunt: This has been a good debate characterised by the sincerity and depth of experience of all Members who have contributed to it.
I hope that everyone shares the regret that all right-thinking Members should feel that it is necessary to make further provision for deficit grant. It is not healthy for the Government to have to support the coal industry in the way that they have had to do in recent years.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon), I do not believe that dependence upon state aid is in the best interests of those who work in the industry. Many of those who care about our great coal industry have been deeply saddened by the events of the past year, because without the damage caused by the strike the industry would have made considerable progress towards the healthy future that would have been in the interests of the miners and the nation. The sad fact is that last year was not a year of progress, as it could so well have been, but a year of lost opportunities and lost coal faces. Seventy-three faces were lost during the dispute—48 working faces, 24 salvage faces and one development face. Writing off those faces will cost the NCB many millions of pounds. Recovering faces is proving to be an expensive business.
The scale of the losses is difficult to comprehend—£2·2 billion is a massive sum. How much better could it have been spent but for the needless, futile strike? The Opposition must stop trying to rewrite the history of the dispute. Surely the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) recognises the damage that was done by Arthur Scargill. The Opposition's refusal to recognise that fact was responsible for sparking my hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) into action. I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that the Kilroot conversion to coal has now been announced. He is right to recognise that coal will have a great future in this industry if it faces up to present realities.
The future is promising, provided that all those in the industry work together in a spirit of reconciliation, putting the divisions of the past behind them. We have enormous resources of coal that could be mined economically and efficiently. We have a skilled and able work force. We have the benefit of advanced technology. As my hon.

Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) keeps reminding us, there is so much going for the coal industry. The opportunities are there to be grasped.
The message from this debate must be that, to reap the benefits, we must produce coal at the right price. That means tackling the problems of the high-cost pits and excess capacity, improving productivity and cutting costs. That policy lies within a clear, coherent energy strategy. I say to the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) that the fundamental objective of this country's energy policy is to ensure that the nation has adequate and secure supplies of energy at the lowest possible cost. We are lucky to have four options available—coal, oil, gas and nuclear fuel. It must be the effort of every Government to keep each of those options active and developing, maximising the contribution to the economy of the energy sector as a whole.
The hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) explained the Opposition's position on the Bill and stressed the urgency of the NCB's financial position. The latter point has been echoed in all the speeches. The hon. Gentleman accused me in serious terms of not responding to various questions that he had raised, and proceeded to criticise the answers that I had given. There is a crucial paradox in that. It is the solution to the problem that he raises. The fact is that the hon. Gentleman does not like the replies that he has received.

Mr. Eadie: The hon. Gentleman did not give any.

Mr. Hunt: How then could the hon. Gentleman criticise my replies?
On Second Reading, I promised to bring to the NCB's attention individual cases of dismissals about which hon. Members provided details. Several hon. Members subsequently wrote to me, and I immediately forwarded copies of their letters to the NCB chairman with a request that the cases be looked into and a reply sent to them direct. I know, and I have checked again today, that those letters are all receiving careful consideration. The board will write in detail to all the hon. Members concerned.
The hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) was particularly concerned that no appeal had been heard in the case of the five men dismissed from the Phurnacite plant at Abercwmboi who would soon run out of time to apply to an industrial tribunal. I made urgent investigations and was told that the internal inquiry procedure was completed on 24 May when the men's dismissals were confirmed. This was in time to enable those of the men who wished to do so to apply to an industrial tribunal.
I should tell the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) that the decision to dismiss a man is never taken lightly. There is no question of victimisation or vindictiveness in the board's actions. The proper course for anyone who believes that he has been unfairly dismissed is to take his case to an industrial tribunal. That is true of any industry. I understand that more than 450 dismissed miners have already taken such action.

Mr. Eadie: The Minister says that we do not like the answesrs he gives, but he has given no answers. I hope that he will read the evidence given by the chairman of the National Coal Board to the Select Committee on Employment. When he talks about industrial tribunals, he is deceiving the House, because the chairman of the NCB made it clear to the Select Committee that not only will


he not re-engage miners who are successful at the industrial tribunals, but that he has absolute contempt for such tribunals.

Mr. Hunt: I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not believe that I am trying to deceive the House. I was not present at the proceedings of the Select Committee, and I understand that the transcript of that evidence has not yet been published, but, as I understand the position, it was stated that, of the 944 men dismissed by the board during the strike, at that time just under 450 had appealed to industrial tribunals; nine cases had been heard; seven miners were held to have been fairly dismissed; one was held to have been unfairly dismissed with no recommendations for re-employment; and one was held to have been unfairly dismissed who has since been re-employed by the board following that recommendation.
The hon. Member for Midlothian asked about the operation of conciliation machinery under the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act 1946. There is no question of the board failing to meet its obligations under the Act. It is unwilling to set up procedures to conciliate where a man alleges wrongful dismissal arising from incidents at his work place to be used in the different circumstances of strike-related dismissals for which the board believes they are inappropriate. The system of industrial tribunals ensures that miners who wish to appeal in those circumstances will be treated in exactly the same way as, and will have the same rights as employees in any other industry.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House asked about the enterprise company. In the early hours of the morning, I do not wish to respond in detail to the specific points made, because I wish to look into some of them further.
The hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) asked specific questions about some pits. With regard to his alarmist comments about the number of redundancies, for which there is no clear foundation, and to similar comments from the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone, it is still too soon for the NCB to assess with precision how fast production can be restored and the markets re-won. Until that calculation can be made, no final decisions can be made on future capacity.

Mr. Lofthouse: Is the Minister telling the House that the pits which I named will not close?

Mr. Hunt: Of course not, because the hon. Gentleman knows the position of those pits. He knows that a decision has been made on Ackton Hall, Glasshoughton and Savile pits. He speculated about the future of other pits, but it is not for me to respond about them. That is a matter for the management of the coal board, and its right to manage was clearly established during the dispute.
However, there are real anxieties about the effect of closures on communities, which is why the Government place so much emphasis on the enterprise company. I shall investigate carefully the comments of the hon. Member for Ashfield and some other comments. I keep in close touch with the executive director of the enterpise company, Mr. Hewitt—indeed, I spoke to him today—and I can say that the company has made an encouraging start in creating alternative employment in coal mining areas. It has already established links with enterprise companies throughout the British coalfield.
Loans totalling nearly £500,000 have already been approved, and that money will initially create 200 to 300

new jobs, and up to 400 or 500 later. The company is actively considering requests for funds in excess of £3 million, with the potential to generate more than 1,000 new jobs. As my hon. Friends the Members for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) and for Sherwood said, 1 have stressed to the House on every possible occasion that further funds will be available as necessary.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) spoke of the need for a better atmosphere. I share his welcome for the spirit of reconciliation in the pits, although I must disagree with his analysis of present circumstances. There were always bound to be exposed nerve ends in the aftermath of a dispute as tragic and bitter as the recent one. It was a strike that should never have been, and if there had been a ballot at the start it would never had taken place.
The hon. Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Thompson) is rightly proud of the board's operations under the North sea. I was deeply impressed by what I found at Ellington —the world's largest undersea coal mining operation— and was pleased to hear soon after my visit of further substantial investment at that pit. The hon. Gentleman made several other interesting observations which I was fascinated to hear.
My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report. He will know that it recognised that the two central problems of the industry are overcapacity and the tail of high-cost pits. The Government and the board agree with that analysis. We are committed to tackling these problems as quickly as possible and to returning the industry to viability.
I am aware that pit closures and redundancies are uppermost in some hon. Member's minds. The board is still assessing the damage done by the strike. The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) mentioned a forthcoming meeting in south Yorkshire. There are still some meetings to come. I hope that the assessment period will be over as quickly as possible. The meetings are setting out the options for the future. Tragically, many faces have been lost and there is no longer a prospect of a viable future at some pits, but the board has given the firm assurance that no pit will close until it has been through the proper colliery review procedure.
I hope that the hon. Member for Wenworth will understand if I do not go into detail about what he said about the NACODS dispute, except to say that I hope that it will end as soon as possible. At pits that close, generous redundancy terms are available to those who wish to leave the industry and there is a job for those who wish to stay.
Because of the deficit grant situation, the setting of the figures for the Bill could not await the outcome of the review. I hope that hon. Members understand that. I confirm to my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood that we have given the board the firm objective of breaking even without deficit grant by 1987–88 and we expect it to meet that objective. There has been and will continue to be substantial investment in new faces, new plant and new machinery that will provide lasting jobs.
Work on sinking the shaft at Asfordby will begin soon, and I recently visited Selby and was greatly impressed by what I saw. The Government have invested more than £4 billion in the coal industry. That is a massive vote of confidence in its future, but investment will in future depend on tackling the problems of the past. The hon. Member for Wansbeck acknowledged that, albeit in a different context.
The hon. Member for Wentworth said that, before the strike we expected 1,000 firms to convert to coal. We have continued the support for such conversion through the coal firing scheme, which has been kept open beyond the previous deadline at the end of last year. The industrial market is a clear growth area for coal and it is vital that the industry should take the opportunity to demonstrate that it is a competitive and reliable supplier.
It is also important that the coal supplied to the electricity industry is competitively priced, since the cost of coal represents half the cost of electricity generation. The competitiveness of our coal is vital to the industrial electricity users who face fierce competition from overseas.
I tell the hon. Members for Ashfield and for Wentworth, who talk about imports and exports, that when the Conservatives won the election in 1979 the United Kingdom was a net importer of 2 million tonnes of coal. By 1983 it had become a net exporter of 2 million tonnes. The strike has destroyed that and last year's imports were twice those of 1973. I must tell the hon. Member for Barnley, West and Penistone that we hope to increase our share of the European market for coal if the NCB becomes more competitive in relation to supplies from other countries.
Some Opposition Members have said that insufficient coal will be produced in Britain to meet our needs. Those fears are completely unfounded. With the new high volume pits such as Selby and Asfordby, and with the substantial investment in existing pits, we shall have ample coal, not only for our own needs, but, providing that costs can be kept to a minimum, for exports in competition with supplies from all round the world.
As the hon. Member for Midlothian said, this industry of ours has a long and honourable tradition which I admire and respect. But if it is to survive, it must be built on the tradition of looking forward, and not backwards. A great future lies ahead and I hope and expect all those who work in the industry to take advantage of the opportunity which the Bill offers to secure a firm and prosperous future. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — Nurses' Pay

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lang.]

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: I am sorry that the clock has just turned one o'clock as we begin to debate the important nurses’ pay issue. I have no doubt that the Official Report will be well read.
The whole question of nurses’ pay has been sadly neglected over many years under successive Governments. The good will and decency of the nurses and the professions allied to medicine, such as physiotherapists and radiographers, has been abused for too long. We are debating the livelihood of a group of the most respected, dedicated and skilled staff who do not take strike action. Years ago, people were pleased to describe nursing as a "calling" for special pople who put the dedication of patient care in front of financial reward.
Let me be quite blunt and record that that is a most accurate description of the nursing profession even today. However, this is a profession which is admired and respected and we have a duty to ensure that its members can afford their rent, clothing and a few luxuries. Can there be a more deserving group within society entitled to be able to afford a holiday each year?
Periodic inquiries into nurses’ pay have proved a failure. An example is that by Lord Halsbury in 1974 which led to large pay increases for nurses, only to be followed by a period of several years when the value of that increase was eroded.

The Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. John Patten): TheHalsbury award was eroded by the end of the Labour Government in 1979.

Mr. Dickens: I accept that. I did not intend to score a political point, but that point was well worth making.
We desperately required a sound system, and I am delighted to applaud my own Government for their initiative. Full marks go to this Government for establishing a pay review body in 1983 for nursing staff, midwives, health visitors and professions allied to medicine. This system will create better arrangements for settling the pay of these staff within the NHS. Being independent, the pay review body is free to recommend levels of pay that it believes to be appropriate in all the circumstances.
My research tells me that NHS funding has risen by over 20 per cent. since we took office, enabling nurses’ pay rates to rise faster than prices, working hours to be cut from 40 to 37½ per week without loss of pay, and an extra 57,000 whole-time nursing equivalents to be employed in Great Britain.
Returning to the review body, the Government are on record as stating that they will stand by their commitments to implement the review body's recommendations—this is where I part company from the Government—unless there are clear and compelling reasons for not doing so. That is the Government's safety valve.
But since the Government themselves always submit evidence to review bodies, on economic and financial considerations as well as such matters as the recruitment and retention of staff groups concerned, it is rather like one


group of witnesses at a trial stating that there may be clear and compelling reasons for not accepting the costs that the judge awards.
The review body will have taken evidence from all other interested parties, including the staff organisations. We are now waiting, with bated breath, for the review body recommendations and also to know whether the Government, having given their own evidence, now propose to act as judge—I really hope not. I have great confidence in the Prime Minister, as well as the Ministers and civil servants in the Department of Health and Social Security, and believe that that will not be the case.
Of course, it is fully appreciated that there is no such thing as Treasury money, only money raised from taxpayers—including nurses themselves. In the current financial year, a cash increase of 5·5 per cent. representing £500 million, has been made available in England, and there is a similar proportion for Scotland and Wales. Regional health authorities will also have available the extra resources produced by local cost improvement programmes. From that vast pool of money — and, I hope, a bit of central money—the NHS must strike the correct balance between all competing demands on those resources. That will need to include the pay of its staff and the development of patient services. In any public body or private company, there is always a direct relationship between pay, capital equipment, expenditure and the number of people employed.
However, as the pay settlement to cover the period from 23 August 1982 to 1 April 1984 of 12·3 per cent. was agreed between parties on the understanding of the proposed setting up of the pay review body, it is most important, in my view, to ensure that we have a contented, sensibly paid nursing staff who will feel motivated to continue their great patient care tradition.
I do hope that, in replying to the debate, the Minister will further enhance his own very high standing in the country in general, and within the NHS in particular, by clearly demonstrating once more to the nurses, the professions allied to medicine, and indeed to the population of the United Kingdom, that patient care is his no. 1 objective.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. John Patten): My hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) is noted for his robust patriotism and firm common sense. That was admirably displayed during our last debate on the coal industry, when I listened to what he said. We have all been fortunate to hear him speak again on this important issue.
My hon. Friend is also noted for his interest in social issues. We know of his concern for the welfare of children, and tonight he has shown his deep concern for the welfare of those who work in the NHS as nurses and midwives. I thank him for raising the important subject of nurses’ pay and for giving me the opportunity to set out the Government's record. However, I am in some difficulty. as I am sure he will appreciate, in that I must at the outset make it clear that I cannot comment in detail on this year's pay claim on behalf on nurses and midwives.
As my hon. Friend knows, we have received the report of the independent review body, and we are still considering its recommendations. I cannot tonight anticipate what our conclusions on that report, or those of

the other review bodies will be. However, I hope that my hon. Friend and others will not have to wait long for the reports to be published.
Having said that, it is important to put the nurses’ pay claim, and the evidence submitted by all parties to the review body, into context. As my hon. Friend said in his concise and characteristically clear speech, since April 1979, the basic pay rates of nurses have on average risen by 94 per cent. That is 23 per cent. more than the increase in prices over the same period. It is important to put that on the record. In addition, the Government found the necessary money — a substantial sum of around £116 million — to reduce nurses' working hours in 1980–81 from 40 to 37½ a week without any loss of pay, thereby enhancing their working conditions and, I hope, their quality of life. That was equivalent to a further increase of 6·5 per cent. on basic pay.
This Government have a lot to be proud of. We have paid the nurses substantially more than the rate of inflation, and we have substantially reduced their hours. But the number of nursing and midwifery staff has also risen steadily, not just to make up for the reduction in hours. We have actually increased the number of nurses and midwives employed overall, thus ensuring a steady and substantial increase in nursing care.
In England, an estimated 39,500 whole-time equivalents were employed between September 1979 and September 1984. Around 24,000 were additional staff to compensate purely for the much-welcomed reduction in hours. But the remainder—on average about an extra 3,000 staff per year—are providing additional services for patients. My hon. Friend was right to end his speech on that note. Consequently, more better paid nurses, employed during a shorter working week, are providing more care for more patients.
Current estimated average earnings — I stress that these are average earnings — of a staff nurse on the maximum of her scale are £147 a week, and those of a ward sister on the maximum £192 a week. I am not suggesting that the Government have provided everything that nurses want, but I am setting down our not inconsiderable record as a background against which this year's pay claim and review body recommendations, when published, must be judged.
The establishment of the review body is a major step forward in making better arrangements for determining nurses’ pay. We established it because we recognised the special position of nursing and midwifery staff in not resorting to industrial action. People of all political parties and none, throughout the country welcome our recognition of that.
I am happy to repeat our commitment to implement the review body's recommendations, unless there are clear and compelling reasons for not doing so. That was the arrangement made when we set up the review body, and I am glad that my hon. Friend gives us full marks for creating it. I know from my constituency that there has been a uniform welcome for the establishment of the pay review body and for the reduction in the working week.
The new arrangements that we have set up in this financial year for funding the NHS mean that there is a direct relationship between pay and service provision. It was important for my hon. Friend to stress the realities of life in this debate, as he did in the previous debate on the coal industry. Pay and service provision simply cannot be divorced. The NHS has no right to expect to be different


from other employers in that respect, whether public or private sector employers. The public purse is not bottomless. There must always be a trade off between pay and services. High pay increases will eat into money for patient care, just as in any industry, and public or private body, they eat into its capacity to do what it sets out to do. That is simple common sense.
The more resources that are devoted to pay, the less will be available for services. That has been a fact for successive Governments of all political colours. Only a fool would seek to deny that truth. It cannot be wished away.
It is particularly important to remember that a 1 per cent. increase in the nurses’ pay bill costs approximately £33 million. To meet a 20 per cent. pay claim would cost £650 million a year extra. We must put that message across to the review bodies. In doing so, we are not for one second saying that we do not want to see nurses and midwives paid properly. Surely our record since 1979, with a substantial increase ahead of inflation and the decrease in the working week demonstrates the Government's determination to those ends.
I should make a further point connected to the Halsbury report to which my hon. Friend referred in his wholly non-party political speech. He may have been right to point to my perhaps unnecessarily partisan references to what happened to the Halsbury pay award after 1974. In evidence to the review body, the staff side referred to increases allegedly required to restore pay to the Halsbury levels of 1974. Such an approach to setting pay is obsolete. We cannot return to it for two reasons.
First, huge pay awards such as the Halsbury award, which was 30 per cent. must be a thing of the past, if we are to maintain the low inflation which is necessary to continue the restoration of our economy. Without that restoration, we cannot increase provision in the NHS, as we are doing at this time of economic difficulty and hope to do at a greater level in a time of economic prosperity.
Secondly, any professional group chooses its favourite year for the purposes of comparison. To allow a group in pay bargaining to pick the year most favourable to its case will produce the leapfrogging in pay rises, which in the past contributed to high inflation, ridiculous rises in pay, and the feeding of inflation, characteristic of the 1970s. That led to the economic problems, especially of 1976, 1977 and 1978, and also to the substantial cuts in provision in the NHS which had to be made in real terms. There have never been cuts in provision in the NHS in real terms since

this Government came into office in 1979. Year on year, by any measure, there has been an increase in provision in real terms.
My hon. Friend was right in saying that there is no such thing as Treasury money. Of course there is not. There is only money that is raised from taxpayers. Among those taxpayers are nurses, and with them there are midwives.
The crucial determinants of pay must be the need to deal fairly with staff and also to recruit and retain staff of the right quality. I must ask my hon. Friend to await our decisions on the review body's recommendations, which will, I am confident, satisfy him on that score. Recruitment and retention are not a great problem in nursing, although there are improvements which could be made. That is why we pointed, in our evidence to the review body, to the need to reward experience in the clinical grades, and to increase the attraction of remaining in those grades rather than opting for management or teaching—a road down which, sometimes unfortunately, a number of nurses have gone.
In addition, although this is not strictly a pay issue, we are following with great interest the proposals for revised education and training for nurses which are emerging from the statutory bodies and from the Royal College of Nursing. An improved approach to the training of nurses, midwives and health visitors which meets the aspirations of the profession and the needs of the NHS, and is affordable, should further attract qualified entrants to nursing.
I am sure that my hon. Friend will accept that we are as committed to the position of nurses in the NHS as we are to the service as a whole. Our record is one that we can be proud of. The extra cash that we have made available and the increased efficiency that we have sought to achieve have enabled record numbers of patients to be treated. That is a triumph not of the Government since 1979 but of the NHS, and of all who work in it — doctors, ancillary workers, ambulance men, nurses and midwives. It is their labours — supported by the Government's policies and the hard-won taxpayers’ money which has gone into the NHS — which have enabled record numbers of patients to be treated year after year in the life of this Government. My hon. Friend referred to that in the closing moments of his speech, as I do in mine.
In 1983, hospitals in England alone treated nearly 1 million more in-patient and day cases than they did five years earlier. We are planning to build on that achievement with the help of all those who work in the NHS — including, of course, nurses and midwives.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes past One o'clock.